On 2018/05/24 03:00, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
I consider it a significant semantic shift from the intended meaning of the
character in the source Japanese character set.
Yes and no. I'd consider the semantic shift from a real pistol in a
Japanese message to a real pistol in a
On Wed, 23 May 2018 10:59:02 -0700
Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
> If you want stable and accurate
> conveyance of particular meaning -- well, write it out in the
> standard orthography of a particular language.
Preferably not of a living language, though even the
I consider it a significant semantic shift from the intended meaning of the
character in the source Japanese character set.
Michael Everson
On 5/23/2018 8:53 AM, Abe Voelker via Unicode wrote:
As a user I find it troublesome because previous messages I've sent
using this character on these platforms may now be interpreted
differently due to the changed representation. That aspect has me
wondering if this change is in line with
On Wed, 23 May 2018 20:08:31 +0300
via Unicode wrote:
> I’d treat these as glyph changes within fonts.
I'd treat them as gross violations of character identity.
Richard.
I’d treat these as glyph changes within fonts.
Sincerely
Erkki I. Kolehmainen
Lähettäjä: Unicode Puolesta Abe Voelker via
Unicode
Lähetetty: keskiviikko 23. toukokuuta 2018 18.54
Vastaanottaja: unicode@unicode.org
Aihe: Major vendors changing U+1F52B
Hello,
I'm curious if there has been any discussion on all the major vendors
changing this emoji's depiction? (
https://blog.emojipedia.org/all-major-vendors-commit-to-gun-redesign/)
As a user I find it troublesome because previous messages I've sent using
this character on these platforms may
On thing to bear in mind about breaks: Unicode is plain-text and not
"final rendered text".
Many types of breaks depend on things like actual font selection, column
width and other factors determined by styling. They are therefore not
necessarily stable from a plain text perspective (the same
8 matches
Mail list logo