I'd agree about reading and following http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Selection_Factors.
As far as petitions go, we take them with a sizable grain of salt. See http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Selection_Factors_Requested. In the particular cases you cite, we had sufficient evidence about prospective usage independent of petitions (which usually started after we had settled on the character anyway). Paella was a bit of an exception; I think the work that the petitioners did upfront helped to convince the subcommittee that there would be sufficient usage, and the main issues were around distinctiveness and generality. Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Andrew West <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19 August 2015 at 12:36, Otto Stolz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You cannot suggest a new character just because it would > > be “nice to have”. Rather, you have to supply evidence that > > an additional character really needs to be encoded, e. g. > > because it is already widely used in print and cannot be > > represented in Unicode. > > Well that may once have been the case, but certainly isn't any longer > with respect to emoji, especially emoji representing food and drink. > > I suggest Emma reads Unicode Technical Report 51 > http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/ especially section 1.2 Encoding > Considerations and Annex C Selection Factors, then start a petition to > the Unicode Consortium on www.change.org, and when she has 10,000 > signatures make a formal request to the UTC. Petitions don't > guarantee acceptance, but widely-petitioned emoji such as taco, cheese > wedge, paella and whisky tumbler have been successful. > > Andrew > >
