Mark Davis ☕️ <m...@macchiato.com>: > > In order to understand the status of any document in the registry, you need > to also look at the minutes of the meeting where they are discussed, in this > case: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16121.htm > >> B.14.3 Provisional value for Emoji property [Emoji SC/Edberg, L2/16-087] >> >> B.14.3.1 Characters Proposed for Emoji=Provisional [Emoji SC/Edberg, >> L2/16-088] >> >> Discussion. UTC took no action at this time. > > "Took no action" generally means "rejected".
Can anyone explain then, why [L2/16-128] seems to have been “rejected” and still made it into selection.html? Same minutes as above: > E.1.11 Additional Emoji selection factor [Emoji SC/Edberg, L2/16-128] > > Discussion. UTC took no action at this time. [L2/16-128]: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16128-additional-emoji-selection-factor.pdf This was the proposed text to be added: > The following is a criterion for adding characters into a release of Unicode. > It is not a selection factor that proposals need to address, but rather a > consideration that the UTC takes into account before approving a character as > a candidate for inclusion in a future release. > > Compared to most other characters in Unicode, there is greater public > awareness of new emoji characters, and a high expectation of support for them > from major vendors. However, the cost to such vendors of supporting new emoji > characters is also much higher than for most other Unicode characters, > especially on devices with limited memory. > > Thus in addition to these selection factors, before approving a new emoji > character the Unicode Technical Committee needs to expect wide deployment: > that major vendors would plan to include the proposed emoji character into > very widely deployed fonts and input methods (keyboards / palettes / speech). In the currently public version of “Submitting Emoji Character Proposals” (dated 4 August 2016) we find most of it unchanged. http://www.unicode.org/emoji/selection.html#selection_factors > Before approving as candidates or adding to a release of Unicode, other > considerations are taken into account. See UTC Consideration. http://www.unicode.org/emoji/selection.html#utc_consideration > 1. Compared to most other characters in Unicode, there is greater public > awareness of new emoji characters, and a high expectation of support for them > from major vendors. However, the cost to such vendors of supporting new emoji > characters is also much higher than for most other Unicode characters, > especially on devices with limited memory. > > 2. Thus in addition to the selection factors, before approving a new emoji > character the Unicode Technical Committee needs to expect wide deployment: > that major vendors would plan to include the proposed emoji character into > very widely deployed fonts and input methods (keyboards / palettes / speech). > > 3. The committee may balance the choices of emoji in a given set of > candidates or release. For example, rather than 15 different breeds of dogs, > the committee might choose to have some faces, some clothing, other animals, > food items, transport items, and sports. None of that was present in April 2016. <https://web.archive.org/web/20160427074931/http://www.unicode.org/emoji/selection.html> I haven’t been able to find out what constitutes a “major vendor”. Apple, Microsoft and Google are certainly ones (and Unicode Full Members), but what about, for instance, Samsung, LG, Sony, Twitter/Twemoji, Facebook, Whatsapp or widely-used platform-independent ones like Emojione (mostly Associate Members or not Unicode members at all)?
