Nick May wrote:
> keitai-l@appelsiini.net
> > We are a bit concerned about breaking internet standards, which is
> > especially important since all users would most likely already use
> fixed
> > Internet.
>
> The "tel" tag and accesskey stuff may well be an extension of a
> standard,
The 'tel' URL scheme is part of a proposed Internet standard - see
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2806.txt>. I don't know whether this
is likely to become a standard.
The 'accesskey' attribute for link elements is included in the HTML 4.01
specification - see
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#adef-accesskey>.
> but surely emoji are more akin to an extension to a font set rather
> than a tag extension as such... As such, is the "internet standards"
> issue really relevant?
A font is a set of character images for a character set. It cannot be
extended without also extending the character set, and that is something
very important. Without standardised character sets and encodings we
cannot reliably exchange text. Shift-JIS does allow for such extension,
but such extensions are only useful within a closed system. It's
arguable that the i-mode service is such a closed system - but only as
long as you exclude email to users of other Internet services, and sites
that are accessible in other formats like WAP or the web.
IMO the character encoding used for i-mode should be registered with
IANA, and declared in message headers by the servers when they serve
i-mode pages using emoji and by DoCoMo's servers when they send out
email using emoji. Perhaps DoCoMo should also submit the emoji for
inclusion in the UCS (Universal Character Set, aka Unicode).
Ben.
--
I do not speak for Roundpoint; any opinions I express are my own.
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Mon Feb 12 21:56:28 2001