Apologies for the duplicate threads; I accidentally sent the email as rich 
text. Here’s a version without the duplicate links.

> On Mar 6, 2018, at 12:52 PM, J. S. Choi via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> 
> wrote:
> The W3C CSS Working Group is continuing to work on standardizing the default 
> emoji presentation in perhaps the most ubiquitous application of Unicode 
> today, the world wide web. Some recent logs:
> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/7a5e0d702b00f8d3df5f2b43c9c65d1c2a2284f6
> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2304#issuecomment-369323232
> Current draft at https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#font-variant-emoji-desc
> Currently, the CSS draft specifies three values for emoji that a web author 
> may use to style their content: auto, text, and emoji. The auto value (which 
> is the default) leaves emoji presentation to the discretion of the web 
> browser and system platform itself, rather than conforming strictly to UTR 
> 51. https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1223 proposes that a strict 
> If the authors or experts of UTR 51 believe that the Emoji_presentation 
> property is useful, then they may want to chime in at Issue 
> w3c/csswg-drafts#1223 with their expertise. My opinion is that standardizing 
> the default presentation is important enough to strictly conform to UTR 51. 
> Breakage has already occurred in the past, such as when WebKit in 2015 
> unexpectedly switched the default presentation of U+21A9 LEFTWARDS ARROW WITH 
> HOOK “↩” from text to emoji, which unexpectedly broke existing websites such 
> as Daring Fireball (see 
> https://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/04/22/unicode-emoji and also 
> http://mts.io/2015/04/21/unicode-symbol-render-text-emoji/).
> See also https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2018-m01/0016.html and 
> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2138. To give an update on this 
> issue: The CSS WG recently resolved to make all web browsers completely 
> ignore BCP47’s -u- extension. If the authors/experts of the BCP47 extension 
> believe that the extension is at all useful, they still may wish to chime in 
> at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2138, but 
> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#font-variant-emoji-desc has now been 
> updated to specify the ignoring of the BCP47 extension.
> Cheers,
> J. S. Choi

Reply via email to