On August 9, 2017 4:28:49 PM GMT+09:00, Thomas Pfeiffer
>On Mittwoch, 9. August 2017 02:14:44 CEST Jonathan Frederickson wrote:
>> On 08/08/2017 06:19 PM, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
>> > - Support for a decent set of Emoji (not just the ones you can
>> > using
>> > ASCII chars).
>> > Using Unicode to display them is probably okay, as long as users
>> > choose
>> > them from a menu in the client instead of having to paste them from
>> > KCharSelect.
>> > This, too, might sound like nice-to-have for many, but not having
>> > would cut us off from the younger generation. Yes, they use them
>> > a "professional context". Believe me, I'm seeing it in action every
>> > at work.
>> I'm not sure custom emoji should be a requirement. That pretty
>> limits your options, and even some of the major chat platforms
>> (WhatsApp, iMessage, Hangouts) don't support this.
>That's why I wrote that Unicode is okay. Unicode now has quite a range
>emoji and that set is growing steadily, so that's fine. Not optimal
>they're black and white, but fine.
>Just not only ASCII ones.
>Custom emoji are nice, but definitely not a must.
This is technically completely wrong - nothing prevents Unicode emoji from
being colored, there are multiple color font technologies in use and Linux
toolkits support some of them.
A "Unicode emoji" is just a number encoded to a bit sequence. How it's
displayed once found is up to the client. Unicode is just how you agree on
exchanging and storing the character.
Plasma, apps developer
KDE e.V. vice president, treasurer
Seoul, South Korea