I am the maker of a similar project to unifont, albeit a work in progress
(see link below), and I certainly won't be supporting anything more than
gender-neutral, race-neutral emoji. This is due to technical
considerations: I don't plan on having colors in my font. The GNU unifont
project already has many emoji, but they also are not colored.

On the other hand, emoji are far from the most technically challenging
category of characters in unicode.

http://www.orenwatson.be/fontdemo.htm

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Rebecca T <637...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I think it’s definitely important to have representation and
> expression for people of all skin tones and genders even in things like
> emoji.
>
> I think we’re rapidly reaching a limit for variation sequences, and I’m
> personally not begging for hair color modifiers (although I would welcome
> them).
>
> I do worry a bit about the burden of supporting emoji on new systems.
> Drawing thousands (not that anyone can even count how many emoji there are)
> is a significant burden on developers creating new systems, and the
> alternative (tofu) isn’t appealing. There is Symbola (which leaves
> something to be desired, to say the least) and the graphical solutions,
> like Apple’s image-based or Microsoft’s layered-vector approach, have
> non-trivial implementations (stuff I wouldn’t want to take care of if I was
> creating a new system).
>
> I guess what I’m saying is: does anyone want to extent Unifont into the
> astral planes?
>
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, zelpa <zelp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So what exactly is the end goal for emoji? First we had the fitzpatrick
>> skin modifiers, now there's the proposal for gendered emoji sequences using
>> ZWJ. There was even the proposal for the hair colour modifier in TR 53. So
>> what is the true end goal? Will we one day be able to display our Fallout 4
>> character with a single emoji and 60 modifiers? And honestly, who is asking
>> for these additions? Does anybody WANT a hair colour modifier? Seems to me
>> like the consortium might just be pandering to a few silly requests (by
>> people who have no actual idea what unicode is) to get media attention.
>>
>

Reply via email to