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?
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
You cannot always tell things like these are jokes, I have seen people argue seriously that Unicode should dictate or enforce emojis before.
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
>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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo