On 11/05/2014 02:48 PM, Rick McGowan wrote:
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
The first icon was not U+1F4A9, but U+1F60F SMIRKING FACE.
Remarkably, Rick's message seems to me to indicate that some emoji
encoded in Unicode are considered by some servers to be obscene! I
never considered the possibility of an obscene code point before.
FWIW, my respondent, hopefully satirically, mentioned this as a basis
for encoding further modifier characters, suitable for 1F4A9:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_stool_scale
------------
> 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
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
