This thread turns more and more absurd by the email! I apologize to people on the list who have to tolerate this; it might be noisy and annoying, but it is important.
Doug Ewell asked: You mean the one where you said that Gmail has had ROBOT FACE for a long > time? Let me use copy-paste for your convenience: Robot Face is available on Gmail (GChat), Facebook, and Twitch among others > (calculating the size of user community is left as an assignment for the > reader). That's enough usage for consideration by the UTC even if the > symbol is not present in a character encoding standard. and then, Doug Ewell wondered: You mean to say that any time Gmail or someone adds a private-use > character or embeddable graphic for TOILET PAPER or TIRE IRON or BEER > KEG, that Unicode is essentially obliged to add an emoji to maintain > compatibility with it? > Yes, but the industry is already moving away from character-based solutions and towards sticker-based solutions as we speak. Right now, Facebook is moving in this direction, as well as Line, Trello, and many others. But things which were added beforehand have precedence to be proposed to Unicode. > Well, perhaps that's how it is now. But that isn't the way Unicode used > to be. Well...Since you seem to be so keen on Internet memes, here's one[6] for you. [6]: http://www.quickmeme.com/img/2a/2ab86791fe23ec5c73dc6d46c2cc5bef14e5ca47ba9208571b79c078fb2af561.jpg ↪ Shervin On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote: > Shervin Afshar <shervinafshar at gmail dot com> wrote: > > >> Of course not. But that's been a stated condition for labeling > >> something as "compatibility." > > > > It *is* compatibility; go back and read my email where I mentioned > > exactly where it was used. > > You mean the one where you said that Gmail has had ROBOT FACE for a long > time? > > You mean to say that any time Gmail or someone adds a private-use > character or embeddable graphic for TOILET PAPER or TIRE IRON or BEER > KEG, that Unicode is essentially obliged to add an emoji to maintain > compatibility with it? > > Well, perhaps that's how it is now. But that isn't the way Unicode used > to be. > > Fuddily-duddily, > > -- > Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org > >
_______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
