So, according to the emoji FAQ <http://unicode.org/faq/emoji_dingbats.html>, the end goal of emoji is to have no emoji? Or something like Softbank's escape sequence? >Q: What is the longer term plan for emoji? >A: The Unicode Consortium encourages the use of embedded graphics (a.k.a. “stickers”) as a longer-term solution, since they allow much more freedom of expression. See Longer Term Solutions <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Longer_Term> in UTR #51 <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/>.
btw is it just me or is the original Japanese carrier emoji, specifically those provided by DoCoMo, still not completely coded into Unicode? I counted the number of I-mode emoji listed on Japanese Wikipedia in the tron code section and there're apparently more emoji than those that are in emoji but I don't know which is missing. 2016-10-13 5:40 GMT+08:00 Oren Watson <[email protected]>: > I think ultimately there isn't an end goal. Unlike most of the other > languages/scripts that unicode supports, emoji is currently in a state of > rapid, decentralized, and asynchronous evolution and development, with > various companies and communities contributing new ideas every year. It > doesn't have an end goal because it isn't a project with a single entity or > leader who defines its direction, as for example Esperanto was. > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 6:58 AM, zelpa <[email protected]> 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. >> > >
