> They wanted more attractive > ideograms that everybody could read, notably on the social medias where > they are targetting the mass that don't wnat to learn a new language.
Who they are? Regards, mpsuzuki Philippe Verdy wrote: > I agree, but this thread just restarted because the very active encoding of > emojis creates such opporutnity to encode some ideas/words with symbols > (though these symbols are just symbols and have no grammar and do not > attempt to represent full text, they are just pictural substitutes for what > they represent directly). > > Emojis are sort of reintroducting of ideograms (but not simplifying them > with counted strokes or reducing them to be dran with a brish and single > ink or reducing them to single syllables as in Chinese: emojis are true > ideograms, just like prehistoric inscriptions, and contain a lot of > pictural art and offer a wide-open creativity, much more than conventional > glyphs for letters or syllables). > > The other iddiference is that emojis are actively supported by vendors and > by many users in the world, profiting the fact that some instant messaging > protocols allowed inserting small bitmap icons. Vendors wanted then to > support these also on larger ranges of devices using different resolutions > (or absence of colors, something rare now). For some applications like SMS > and Twitter, using icons was too costly they wanted a more compact > representation (that did not require shifting to costly MMS or posting URLs > hosted on random hosts, with security and privacy problems). > > It's natural that emojis came first from Asia (hence their name), where the > creation of sinograms is still very active, but with glyphs that are > difficult to interpret by most readers. They wanted more attractive > ideograms that everybody could read, notably on the social medias where > they are targetting the mass that don't wnat to learn a new language. > > 2015-06-24 17:57 GMT+02:00 Peter Constable <[email protected]>: > >> Dear Sarasvati: >> >> >> >> There is a new thread on the topic of using characters to give abstract >> representation of semantic propositions that can be rendered as sentences >> in various languages ― so called “localizable sentences”. This idea has >> been brought up repeatedly over several years now and has gained no >> traction as having potential for a Unicode encoding proposal. To having >> this topic continually re-opened is tiresome; it’s a form of spam on this >> list, degrading the experience for all who come to the list to discuss >> reasonable proposals or to get help with real usage scenarios. I wonder if >> you might want to consider putting a moratorium on further discussion of >> this topic. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
