Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > On 5/17/2017 2:31 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > There's some sort of rule that proposals should be made seven days in > advance of the meeting. I can't find it now, so I'm not sure whether >

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 18 May 2017, at 01:04, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > > I find intriguating that the update intends to enforce the decoding of the > **shortest** sequences, but now wants to treat **maximal sequences** as a > single unit with arbitrary length. UTF-8 was designed

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 18 May 2017, at 06:01, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > On Thu, 18 May 2017 02:04:55 +0200 > Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > >> I find intriguating that the update intends to enforce the decoding >> of the **shortest** sequences, but

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

> On 16 May 2017, at 15:21, Richard Wordingham via Unicode > wrote: > > On Tue, 16 May 2017 14:44:44 +0200 > Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote: > >>> On 15 May 2017, at 12:21, Henri Sivonen via Unicode >>> wrote: >> ... >>> I think

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 18 May 2017, at 07:18, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote: > > the decision complicates U+FFFD generation when validating UTF-8 by state > machine. It *really* doesn’t. Even if you’re hell bent on using a pure state machine approach, you need to add maybe two additional

Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

http://blog.emojipedia.org/rip-blobs-google-redesigns-emojis/ Is this some kind of joke? Have Google put ANY thought into their emoji design? First they bastardise the cute blob emoji, then they make their emoji gendered, now they've literally just copied Apple's emoji. It's sickening.

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

You cannot always tell things like these are jokes, I have seen people argue seriously that Unicode should dictate or enforce emojis before.

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

A more democratic solution is to allow the global public to both submit and vote on emoji designs. Rather than allow a small number of (probably) north american white males to dictate emojis in a 'colonial' process based on their own world and personal view. The Unicode consortium can vote to

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

Asmus Freytag wrote: >> Given that one co-chair of the Emoji Subcommittee is from Apple and >> the other is from Google, you may wish to rethink your expectations >> about all this. > > I'd expect "zelpa" to feel validated by this info in their concern, > wouldn't you? Well, it's public

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

On 5/18/2017 9:48 AM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: Asmus Freytag wrote: Given that one co-chair of the Emoji Subcommittee is from Apple and the other is from Google, you may wish to rethink your expectations about all this. I'd expect "zelpa" to feel validated by this info in their concern,

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

Again, Unicode is not intended to and cannot ban specific designs of characters including emoji. Unicode is responsible creating a list of characters that should be supported, with the goal of making textual communication online possible through a standardised encoding. Unicode is not

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

>Unambiguously, Apple has failed to meet these technical guidelines, >in a blatant and unapologetic manner, and that’s why I liked the blobs — >they bucked norms, refused to conform to trends, and made emoji more >friendly to people who didn’t want to attach a gender to their every >expression. I

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

On 5/18/2017 7:41 AM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: zelpa wrote: This is my real issue, Apple disregards guidelines, sets a de facto standard, Google races to copy them. It's actually sad to see how far other vendors will go to copy Apple's designs. I honestly think the consortium should try

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

zelpa wrote: > This is my real issue, Apple disregards guidelines, sets a de facto > standard, Google races to copy them. It's actually sad to see how far > other vendors will go to copy Apple's designs. I honestly think the > consortium should try harder to enforce the guidelines instead of >

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

As said, Unicode does not and cannot enforce anything. Unicode sets the recommendation, but has no power whatsoever of enforcing every vendor to meet these recommendations, nor does it expect vendors to follow Apples designs. > On 18 May 2017, at 17:26, zelpa via Unicode

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

And what makes you think Unicode has any authority to ‘ban’ Google from doing anything at all (hint: Unicode has zero ability to enforce anything). On Thu, 5/18/17, zelpa via Unicode wrote: Subject: Petition to ban Google from

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

Hi, the Unicode Consortium does not and cannot “ban” vendors from designing emojis the way they wish. Unicode merely gives recommendations on how the characters should be displayed. Think of the different designs on different platforms like different fonts you can use (because that is actually

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

Is it possible to introduce variation selector for emoji with large design variation among vendors so that when users send emoji with selectors their variation among vendors can be minimized by asking vendors to support both versions?

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

On 5/18/2017 10:40 AM, David Faulks via Unicode wrote: You cannot always tell things like these are jokes, I have seen people argue seriously that Unicode should dictate or enforce emojis before. Many jokes contain

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On Thu, 18 May 2017 09:58:43 +0100 Alastair Houghton via Unicode wrote: > On 18 May 2017, at 07:18, Henri Sivonen via Unicode > wrote: > > > > the decision complicates U+FFFD generation when validating UTF-8 by > > state machine. > > It *really*