Good point. I missed these while looking into compatibility symbols. Of course, as with Yahoo[1] and MSN[2] Messenger emoji sets, most of these are mappable to current or proposed sets of Unicode emoji (e.g. Lips Sealed ≈ U+1F910 ZIPPER-MOUTH FACE). It would be interesting to see how the extended support for flags, most of smiley faces, objects, etc. on all platforms would affect this approach.
My idea of a sticker-based solution is something more like Facebook's[3] or Line's[4] implementations. [1]: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15059-emoji-im-yahoo.pdf [2]: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15058-emoji-im-msn.pdf [3]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/facebook-stickers-comments_n_5982546.html [4]: https://creator.line.me/en/guideline/ ↪ Shervin On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Peter Constable <[email protected]> wrote: > Skype uses stickers, including animated stickers. Here’s the documented > set: > > > > https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA12330/what-is-the-full-list-of-emoticons > > > > And if you search, you’ll find lots more “hidden” emoticons, like > “(bartlett)”. > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > *From:* Shervin Afshar [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:12 PM > *To:* Peter Constable > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Future of Emoji? (was Re: Tag characters) > > > > Peter, > > > > This very topic was discussed in last meeting of the subcommittee and my > impression is that there are plans to promote the use of embedded graphics > (aka stickers) either through expansions to section 8 of TR51 or through > some other means. It should also be noted that none of current members of > Unicode seem to have a sticker-based implementation (with the exception of > an experimental limited trial by Twitter[1]). > > > > [1]: http://mashable.com/2015/04/16/twitter-star-wars-emoji/ > > > > > ↪ Shervin > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Peter Constable <[email protected]> > wrote: > > And yet UTC devotes lots of effort (with an entire subcommittee) to > encode more emoji as characters, but no effort toward any preferred longer > term solution not based on characters. > > > > > > Peter > > > > *From:* Unicode [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Shervin > Afshar > *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:27 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Tag characters > > > > Thinking about this further, could the technique be used to solve the > requirements of > section 8 Longer Term Solutions > > > > IMO, the industry preferred longer term solution (which is also discussed > in that section with few existing examples) for emoji, is not going to be > based on characters. > > > > > ↪ Shervin > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:40 PM, William_J_G Overington < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > What else would be possible if the same sort of technique were applied > to another base character? > > > Thinking about this further, could the technique be used to solve the > requirements of > > section 8 Longer Term Solutions > > of > > http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/tr51-2.html > > ? > > > Both colour pixel map and colour OpenType vector font solutions would be > possible. > > > Colour voxel map and colour vector 3d solids solutions are worth thinking > about too as fun coding thought experiments that could possibly lead to > useful practical results. > > > > > William Overington > > > 14 May 2015 > > > > >
