> > I forwarded this on, and the only response I got was a question regarding > if the Fitzpatrick modifiers applied to U+1F4A9? I answered that they only > apply to specified emoji. But I wonder if the question was in fact a > commentary on what they think of the proposal. >
Oh...I think that question is already answered by another emoji which - unlike 1F4A9 - is actually fitz-optional[1]. [1]: http://www.unicode.org/Public/emoji/1.0/emoji-annotations.html#fitz-optional ↪ Shervin On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Karl Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/03/2014 08:17 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> egg hatching emoji The Unicode Consortium has released the draft >> “Unicode Emoji <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/tr51-1.html>” >> document, whose main goal is to help improve the interoperability of >> emoji characters across implementations by providing guidelines and data. >> >> This draft document also includes a section on Diversity, with a >> mechanism using 5 new proposed characters to provide a variety of skin >> tones for existing emoji characters. >> >> tr51 table 2-2 >> >> The document is in “Proposed Draft” state, and made available for public >> review and comment. >> >> http://unicode-inc.blogspot.com/2014/11/new-unicode-emoji- >> draft-available-for.html >> >> > > I forwarded this on, and the only response I got was a question regarding > if the Fitzpatrick modifiers applied to U+1F4A9? I answered that they only > apply to specified emoji. But I wonder if the question was in fact a > commentary on what they think of the proposal. > _______________________________________________ > Unicode mailing list > [email protected] > http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode >
_______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
