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
>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
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 <oren.wat...@gmail.com>:
> 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 <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.