38 ms·

"You might find your conversations work better if you respond to what people are actually saying rather than repeating yourself" You're going to seriously say

"You might find your conversations work better if you respond to what people are actually saying rather than repeating yourself" You're going to seriously say that after your last few posts? Two posts into this exchange, you moved the goalposts, and you hammered that button repeatedly. But at least you actually looked at the proof you repeatedly demanded, even I had already mentioned the pages. You didn't bother reading much of it, or to note that goes well beyond a couple scripts on that page to other incomplete scripts and as-yet entirely unimplemented scripts. But you at least made that minimum effort. And the limited time to work on these things is exactly the issue. There are scripts not yet in the standard and major language scripts that aren't complete - but we've got "pile of poo" and a slew of emoji. And now, we've got four power button icons that a handful of people demanded.

acdha 10y ago
> You're going to seriously say that after your last few posts? Two posts into this exchange, you moved the goalposts, and you hammered that button repeatedly. You started this conversation with “Unicode don't actually have anything like coverage of the entirety of every script and alphabet.” It's hardly moving the goalposts to question how complete Unicode has to be to qualify as “anything like” or how much weight usage should have. > But at least you actually looked at the proof you repeatedly demanded, even I had already mentioned the pages. You didn't bother reading much of it, or to note that goes well beyond a couple scripts on that page to other incomplete scripts and as-yet entirely unimplemented scripts. But you at least made that minimum effort. Before you could call that proof, you have to clearly articulate the questions it could answer. Note that my first comment indicated a clear understanding of how Unicode works – the process is not in question here, only the thresholds you haven't articulated. All I've been trying to get you to state is precisely what your rules would be for coverage of human languages before we can add anything else and how much usage should factor into that. There's also a much harder question of trying to come up with a rule which to say why a pictograph, the phaistos disc symbols, etc. are valid for inclusion but a modern symbol used millions of times a day around the world to communicate is not? While thinking about this, it's also worth remembering that despite your apparent belief that emoji are a Western novelty, the question was how to improve Unicode adoption in Japan and that required having an answer for the millions of people who were using systems which relied on non-standard encodings and by most accounts Japanese carriers were resistant to adopting Unicode without having a standard to replace those ad-hoc systems. I think that decision should have been handled differently (i.e. assigning an emoji plane) but it was driven by understandable technical reasons affecting large numbers of people on a daily basis. Since that decision was made, the additional cost to add a small number of non-controversial additions which do not require scholarly research or documentation does not seem excessive — we are, after all, talking about a small percentage of the new symbols in Unicode 9.0.

acdha 10y ago

> You're going to seriously say that after your last few posts? Two posts into this exchange, you moved the goalposts, and you hammered that button repeatedly. You started this conversation with “Unicode don't actually have anything like coverage of the entirety of every script and alphabet.” It's hardly moving the goalposts to question how complete Unicode has to be to qualify as “anything like” or how much weight usage should have. > But at least you actually looked at the proof you repeatedly demanded, even I had already mentioned the pages. You didn't bother reading much of it, or to note that goes well beyond a couple scripts on that page to other incomplete scripts and as-yet entirely unimplemented scripts. But you at least made that minimum effort. Before you could call that proof, you have to clearly articulate the questions it could answer. Note that my first comment indicated a clear understanding of how Unicode works – the process is not in question here, only the thresholds you haven't articulated. All I've been trying to get you to state is precisely what your rules would be for coverage of human languages before we can add anything else and how much usage should factor into that. There's also a much harder question of trying to come up with a rule which to say why a pictograph, the phaistos disc symbols, etc. are valid for inclusion but a modern symbol used millions of times a day around the world to communicate is not? While thinking about this, it's also worth remembering that despite your apparent belief that emoji are a Western novelty, the question was how to improve Unicode adoption in Japan and that required having an answer for the millions of people who were using systems which relied on non-standard encodings and by most accounts Japanese carriers were resistant to adopting Unicode without having a standard to replace those ad-hoc systems. I think that decision should have been handled differently (i.e. assigning an emoji plane) but it was driven by understandable technical reasons affecting large numbers of people on a daily basis. Since that decision was made, the additional cost to add a small number of non-controversial additions which do not require scholarly research or documentation does not seem excessive — we are, after all, talking about a small percentage of the new symbols in Unicode 9.0.