Agreed. I think a good response to “that’d _double_ the codepoints, so we should just add a ligature” is “if it would be such a burden to implement that you don’t want to use space in the charts for what are, fundamentally, hundreds of *semantically different* ideographs, why are we dumping that burden onto vendors?”
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Philippe Verdy <verd...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > 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 > way. > > 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 >> >> >