I think that emojis at the minimum shoudl all be dispalyable isolately,
without being required to form pseudo ligatures or to use colors. Skin
colors can still be displayed with a patchwork-like rectangle after it and
could still use monochromaic pattern fills. The number of combinations is
exploding and most of them are infact not evident at all (or are highly
culturally oriented).

Amojis should remain simple, showing basic shapes, but I don't see why it
could not differentiate a man or a woman, independantly of the ligatures
that may be created with them (using a completely invented adhoc
"orthography" that actually follows no standard at all and does not match
cultural differences or the way we perceive the associations, that are more
and more limiting their semantic interpretation in a too much restricted

We certaionly don't have enough history is using emojis for creating and
standardizing such pseudo-orthography. Emojis remain a new pseudo-language,
but it reuses a typography based on visible symbols that have a long
cutlural tradition with other cultural meanings and many unexpected
semantics that don't work with the current associations created.

So in fact I only support very few associations:
- associating two "Flag" pseudo-letters (but a rendering should still be OK
if the emojis just show the actual letters within a left or right part of a
frame for a flag., without attempting to combine them into an actual
colored flag (which will need to evolve with time).
- associating skin color emojis after an emoji for a real human person or
perosn face (no need this in fiction characters or for coloring other parts
such as hands, fingers, eyes, hair, nose...)

In all cases, colors should always remain an option. Please keep emojis
simple and always usable in isolation, leaving their interpretation and
associations only to reading humans according to their local culture and
social interactions. The way they are used now is in fact abusing the
initial goal of Unicode encoding which is to not encode according to
specific languages or culture, and not break their basic semantic. byt
mising them into something that is not clearly separable and does not carry
the same amount of semantics.

2016-10-12 18:31 GMT+02:00 Doug Ewell <d...@ewellic.org>:

> Leonardo Boiko wrote:
> <http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m10/0192.html>
> Gosh, even I wouldn't have gone that far.
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

Reply via email to