On 06/06/11 13:45, Martin Holmes wrote:
> 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.
I totally agree. But you *are* using the character above!
If you tag it
(Face with no good gesture)
that obliges you to have a graphic representing the wretched thing,
whi(Face with no good gesturech seems a bit unnecessary.
I think I would much rather do
<desc>(Face with no good gesture)</desc>
this may mean i have to defined a <glyph> for each of the little devils,
but that seems less dishonest than pretending they are actually
graphics. And I'm not actually obliged to use the @ref attribute on <g>
if I am content to use the Unicode character on its own.
>> 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