Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark Davis

unread,
Jan 9, 2009, 8:51:03 PM1/9/09
to Kenneth Whistler, eve...@evertype.com, uni...@unicode.org, sym...@unicode.org, emoji4...@googlegroups.com, UTC
On the FLAGs, we have paid attention to what you said, and opened
issue #58 for it so that we wouldn't lose it.

http://code.google.com/p/emoji4unicode/issues/detail?id=58

This was one where we didn't take any action yet because this was an
area where the UTC had already given us direction, and we figured it
would probably take some discussion there in any event.

Mind you, I don't think anyone particularly cares what we call these
beasties. It could be EMOJI SYMBOL FOR RUSSIAN LOCALIZATION (or
COMPATIBILTY EMOJI FLAG SYMBOL FOR RUSSIAN), or whatever. They are
being used as proxy for choosing localizations, but such use of
country flags is strongly discouraged in localization best practices.
We have no interest in country flags beyond what we need for
compatibility with the emoji sets!

And so if it seems likely that that would be the consensus on of the
UTC, we could go ahead and put it in the working proposal.

Mark

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 16:58, Kenneth Whistler <ke...@sybase.com> wrote:
> Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> The national flags, and the STATUE OF LIBERTY and TOKYO TOWER seem
>> very much out of scope, unless the door is being opened to STONEHENGE
>> and NEWGRANGE and all the other flags.
>
> They are in the emoji set, and in those particular cases
> (except the STATUE OF LIBERTY) occur in more than one of the
> vendor sets and are cross-mapped to each other. Hardly a case of
> being "out of scope".
>
> As for the particulars, I guess nobody has been paying attention
> to what I've said about the ten FLAG SYMBOL XX characters
> (e-4E5..e-4EE). They are not symbols of countries, nor are
> they symbols of flags. They are flag icons being used in
> these sets as symbols for 10 common language localizations.
> That is why I recommend that:
>
> a. the glyphs be changed to make that clear
> b. the names be changed to EMOJI SYMBOL FOR RUSSIAN LOCALISATION
> or something similar
>
> All the FUD about "all the other flags" is merely creating
> roadblocks for accomplishing what needs to be done to get
> interoperable cross-mappings for these 10 symbols in the set.
>
> As for TOKYO TOWER and STATUE OF LIBERTY, they are just two
> random doohickey symbols in the set. It is not worth the
> life-shortening effects of high blood pressure to worry about
> them opening the door to encoding a character for every
> tourist destination around the world.
>
> I can assure you that I have no plans to bring in a proposal
> for the COIT TOWER, SEARS TOWER, and WATTS TOWERS characters
> anytime soon. So I think the Irish NB may desist on demanding
> an encoding for the NEWGRANGE, OBRIENS TOWER, and OLD
> JAMESON DISTILLERY characters.
>
> --Ken
>
>
>
>
>

vun...@vfemail.net

unread,
Jan 9, 2009, 10:08:01 PM1/9/09
to Mark Davis, Kenneth Whistler, eve...@evertype.com, uni...@unicode.org, sym...@unicode.org, emoji4...@googlegroups.com, UTC
Quoting "Mark Davis" <mark.edw...@gmail.com>:

> On the FLAGs, we have paid attention to what you said, and opened
> issue #58 for it so that we wouldn't lose it.
>
> http://code.google.com/p/emoji4unicode/issues/detail?id=58
>
> This was one where we didn't take any action yet because this was an
> area where the UTC had already given us direction, and we figured it
> would probably take some discussion there in any event.
>
> Mind you, I don't think anyone particularly cares what we call these
> beasties. It could be EMOJI SYMBOL FOR RUSSIAN LOCALIZATION (or
> COMPATIBILTY EMOJI FLAG SYMBOL FOR RUSSIAN), or whatever. They are
> being used as proxy for choosing localizations, but such use of
> country flags is strongly discouraged in localization best practices.
> We have no interest in country flags beyond what we need for
> compatibility with the emoji sets!
>

But others, in fact probably most of the human race do have an
interest a wider interest in flags.

Regards
john knightley

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages