> On 2008-12-25 03:55, Ruszlan Gaszanov wrote:
> > Ok, but we can't really compare consistent ideographic writing systems
> like hieroglyphics and Han with emoji, which is merely a random collection of
> > various unrelated dingbats.
> Just because none of us seem to understand the criteria for inclusion,
> that doesn't make the set random.
I think the proposers need to demonstrate that the set is *not* just a
more or less random jumble of dingbats.
IMO there needs to be a clear policy on on symbol sets like this -
otherwise there will inevitably be proposals to encode all kinds of
<e-4F4 /> because the cell phone networks in one country or another
decide to make glyphs for them available via the character sets they
Carriers seeking a competitive advantage are bound to get ideas like:
'Let's see if adding "flying shoe" characters increases subscribers
to my network in Iraq and other Arab countries'. If an idea like that
proved effective, carriers could start comming up with new dingbat
characters at the sort of rate they make new ringtones available.
Before this goes any further, can UTC and WG2 *together* first come up
with a sane and clear policy on encoding symbols like these - or
indeed whether such things should be encoded in the UCS (outside of
PUA) at all ?