> On 09 Aug 2017, at 16:19, Eike Hein <h...@kde.org> wrote:
> On August 9, 2017 4:28:49 PM GMT+09:00, Thomas Pfeiffer 
> <thomas.pfeif...@kde.org> wrote:
>> 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
>> create
>>>> using
>>>> ASCII chars).
>>>> Using Unicode to display them is probably okay, as long as users
>> can
>>>> 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
>> them
>>>> would cut us off from the younger generation. Yes, they use them
>> even in
>>>> a "professional context". Believe me, I'm seeing it in action every
>> day
>>>> at work.
>>> I'm not sure custom emoji should be a requirement. That pretty
>> heavily
>>> 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
>> of 
>> emoji and that set is growing steadily, so that's fine. Not optimal
>> because 
>> 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.
Actually I realized this myself today when I actually looked at examples of 
Unicode emojis in some standard fonts and saw that yes, those were colored.

Okay cool then Unicode it is :)

Reply via email to