On 1/24/2019 11:14 PM, Tex wrote:
I am surprised at the length of this debate, especially since the
arguments are repetitive…
That said:
Twitter was offered as an example, not the only example just one of
the most ubiquitous. Many messaging apps and other apps would benefit
from italics.
I am surprised at the length of this debate, especially since the arguments are
repetitive…
That said:
Twitter was offered as an example, not the only example just one of the most
ubiquitous. Many messaging apps and other apps would benefit from italics. The
argument is not based on
On 1/24/2019 9:44 PM, Garth Wallace via
Unicode wrote:
But the root problem isn't the kludge, it's the lack of
functionality in these systems: if Twitter etc. simply
implemented some styling on their own, the whole thing would be
a moot
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:27 AM James Kass via Unicode
wrote:
>
> Nobody has really addressed Andrew West's suggestion about using the tag
> characters.
>
> It seems conformant, unobtrusive, requiring no official sanction, and
> could be supported by third-partiers in the absence of corporate
>
Den 2019-01-24 03:21, skrev "Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode"
:
> On 1/22/19 6:26 PM, Kent Karlsson via Unicode wrote:
>> Ok. One thing to note is that escape sequences (including control sequences,
>> for those who care to distinguish those) probably should be "default
>> ignorable" for display.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:42:59PM +, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:24:07 +0200
> Khaled Hosny via Unicode wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 03:54:29PM +, Andrew West via Unicode
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 15:42, James Kass
> >> wrote:
>
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:24:07 +0200
Khaled Hosny via Unicode wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 03:54:29PM +, Andrew West via Unicode
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 15:42, James Kass
>> wrote:
>>> Going off topic a little, I saw this tweet from Marijn van Putten
>>> today which shows
> Maybe I should have said emoji are fan-driven.
That works. Here's the previous assertion rephrased:
We should no more expect the conventional Unicode character encoding
model to apply to emoji than we should expect the old-fashioned text
ranges to become fan-driven.
And if we don't
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 03:54:29PM +, Andrew West via Unicode wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 15:42, James Kass wrote:
> >
> > Here's a very polite reply from John Hudson from 2000,
> > http://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/Archives-Old/UML024/1042.html
> > ...and, over time, many of the
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 15:42, James Kass wrote:
>
> Here's a very polite reply from John Hudson from 2000,
> http://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/Archives-Old/UML024/1042.html
> ...and, over time, many of the replies to William Overington's colorful
> suggestions were less than polite. But it
Andrew West wrote as follows:
… (note that the colored characters do not change the color of the
emoji they are attached to [before or after, depending upon whether
you are speaking French or English dialect of emoji], they are just
intended as a visual indication of what colour you wish the
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
It doesn't just take someone saying "out of scope."
It depends who it is. The theory is that people post in the mailing list
as individuals, yet some people have very great influence.
It also has to *be* out of scope!
Maybe, it depends who says what.
If
Andrew West wrote,
> Why should we not expect the conventional Unicode character encoding
> mode to apply to emoji?
Remember when William Overington used to post about encoding colours,
sometimes accompanied by novel suggestions about how they could be
encoded or referenced in plain-text?
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 13:59, James Kass via Unicode
wrote:
>
> FAICT, the emoji repertoire is vendor-driven, just as the pre-Unicode
> emoji sets were vendor driven. Pre-Unicode, if a vendor came up with
> cool ideas for new emoji they added new characters to the PUA. Now that
> emoji are
Andrew West wrote,
> ...
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18208-white-wine-rgi.pdf), just an
> assertion that it would be a good idea if emoji users could add a
> colored swatch to an existing emoji to indicate what color they want
> it to represent (note that the colored characters do not
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 02:10, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode
wrote:
>
> Unicode isn't here to encode cool new ideas that would be cool and
> new. It's here for writing what people already do.
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18141r2-emoji-colors.pdf
"Add 14 colored emoji characters for decorative
16 matches
Mail list logo
