> 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 :)