FYI, Posting this on behalf of Mark Davis... Something in his original
reply message is apparently toxic to our mail gateway that it can't get
through. (Investigating.)
May be the literal U+1F4A9, which I have (I'm sorry) redacted below.
Rick
------------
> Could be either one [U+1F4A9]
>
> The exact contents of minimal and optional characters is something
that we
> want to get feedback on. But I don't think [U+1F4A9] is in the running!
>
> BTW, I'm seeing about 250 new news articles on this, per hour (in
English).
> https://www.google.com/search?q=emoji+unicode&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:h
>
> Plus a scattering of others, s.a.
>
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/unicode-consortium-emojis-demnaechst-fuer-alle-hautfarben-a-1001125.html
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
