On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Ken Whistler <kenwhist...@att.net> wrote:
> On 8/26/2016 10:01 AM, John O'Conner wrote: > >> What I find more interesting is how emoji (a small digital image or icon) >> was ever interpreted as encodable text for the Unicode Standard. If our >> German newspaper friends have made a mistake in interpreting emoji as >> speech, I think the Unicode consortium has made an even bigger mistake. >> >> > That particular horse left the barn over a decade ago, when Japanese > telcom companies started extending Shift-JIS with emoji on various phones, > and then connected those phones to the internet and started exchanging > email with Unicode-based systems. The emoji were *already* *encoded* text > by that point -- not merely some prospective, uncertain set of entities > which *might* be *encodable*. > Several people over time have also pointed out that "small images or icons" already got a foot in the door with Dingbats in Unicode 1.0. markus
