My apologies for my last post. I realize now that William Overington
was referring to "exact images" rather than "abstract symbols"
exclusions. My opinion stands, though, FWIW.
William Overington wrote,
> The designs that I have produced for abstract emoji of
> personal pronouns could be drawn, whilst each retaining
> enough of their shape information to still convey the
> intended meaning, in, say, the style of the Comic Sans
> font. So the designs that I produced are
You and Alan both raise good issues and make good points. I'd mention a
couple of others.
When we started Unicode, there were not a lot of alternatives to a
general-purpose discussion email list for internationalization, but now
there are many. Often the technical discussions are moved to more
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 2:35 AM, William_J_G Overington via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
>
> I decided that trying to design emoji for 'I' and for 'You' seemed
> interesting so I decided to have a go at designing some.
>
Why don't we just encode Blissymbolics, where pronouns are already
William Overington wrote:
>
> I decided that trying to design emoji for 'I' and for 'You' seemed
> interesting so I decided to have a go at designing some.
>
> However pictures of people with arrows seemed to be ambiguous in
> meaning and also they seemed to need to be too detailed for
James
I think you have answered your own question: nearly everything works
"out-of-the-box".
Unicode is just there, and most computer users have probably never heard of it.
I routinely produce web pages with English, French, Russian and Chinese text
and a few symbols, and don't even think
6 matches
Mail list logo
