> > But an approach that abstracts the name, then tries to re-imagine a > > representation from scratch is, in my view, very much misguided. > > Recall that many of the emojis 1) have changed glyphs quite a lot from > the source glyphs, and 2) are to quite an extent defined from the *source* > (Japanese) **names** for them rather than the actual glyphs.
O.k., I'll take emoji sources for $400, Alex. e-510, which is the id of the sources for U+1F381 WRAPPED PRESENT Docomo #72, purezento KDDI #144, purezento Softbank #136 (old #108), purezento "purezento" in all cases is the Katakana transliteration of English "present", which is now a borrowed Japanese word meaning, well, "present" (but just of the kind wrapped up and given as a gift). The saliant aspect of the glyphs in all 3 sets is the *bright red ribbon* around the box. 3-535, which is the id of the sources for U+1F4E6 PACKAGE (Docomo #72, purezento) KDDI #165, pakkeeji (Softbank #136 (old #108), purezento) Only KDDI makes a distinction. The cross-mappings between vendors map KDDI #165 to the "purezento" on the other systems. "pakkeeji" is the Katakana transliteration of English "package", which is now a borrowed Japanese word meaning, well, "package" (but of the kind typically wrapped up in brown paper, tied with a string or various kinds of fibrous straw, and not given as a gift -- i.e., the kind of wrapped up item you might carry out of a store). The connotation here is certainly not primarily a *postal* parcel, although it could apply to that as well, of course. The KDDI #165 glyph is distinguished from the KDDI #144 glyph in being a flatter box and tied up with a string, instead of a ribbon. It seems to me both the names and glyphs are just fine as they are for characters whose encoded purpose is mainly to serve as mappings for the emoji sets in question. Although I wouldn't object if somebody made a glyph that flattened the box for U+1F4E6, so the glyph was a little less confusable with U+1F381. But I agree with Asmus that starting from the *Unicode* names and then inventing fancies about how the characters should be depicted because of postal parcel rules about use of packing tape is misguided here. --Ken
