On 11-06-06 05:32 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> Delighted (I think) to know that emoticons are defined in Unicode, but
> I'm puzzled as to why you'd put them in a<figDesc> (which is for
> describing an image, not representing it) rather than directly in the
> text. I'd stick with a<seg type="emoticon" subtype="whatever">
> containing the appropriate character/s myself. Unless you want to define
> your own phrase level<emoticon> element, of course.
I was thinking that one of the best ways of describing an image is to
take advantage of a standard description/representation that exists in a
🙅 (Face with no good gesture)
will probably be more helpful in the long term than an idiosyncratic
attempt to describe an obscure emoticon. As far as using the actual
characters right now is concerned, they're not in Plane 0, and font
support is likely to be patchy at best.
> On 06/06/11 13:23, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> For the graphical emoticons, you could use the appropriate Unicode
>> characters or their numeric entities in a<figDesc> -- emoticons have
>> been in Unicode for a while:
>> On 11-06-05 11:21 PM, Maria Ermakova wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> I have a question concerning emoticon encoding. I am encoding forums and
>>> chats (using default text and speech modules), and there is plenty of
>>> different characters, which express emotions. Generally one can divide them
>>> in two separate blocks: graphic emoticons (smileys) and typed emoticons
>>> (strings of characters).
>>> I have tried the following elements for encoding them:<g>,<seg
>>> type="emoticon">,<figure><graphic/></figure>. Nevertheless, this encoding
>>> does not seem to be satisfactory.
>>> Has anyone done smiley encoding? If yes, how did You annotate them? Did You
>>> distinguish between different types of emoticons?
>>> Thank You in advance,
>>> Maria Ermakova