I followed up on the name Charlotte Buff in association with Unicode and
found many documents already describing what I said in my original mail.
Multiple times in the document registry, together with tons of other
helpful suggestions on how to make Emoji better. However, none of these
suggestions have apparently ever been taken seriously enough to cause
changes. So can understand Charlotte Buffs anger for the most part.

James Kass wrote:
> The driving force may have more to
> do with sales and marketing.  In this regard, emoji are "special".
> Hence, if we approach emoji encoding issues in the traditional manner,
>ESC decisions might appear baffling or unreasonable.  But if we
> broaden our horizons and allow that sales and marketing concerns are a
> factor, we might gain a little clarity and a better understanding.

I'm not approaching Emoji in the same manner as other character-sets in
Unicode, but they are still part of this industry-wide encoding standard
that should not be misused for marketing gags and still be handled like a
standard with certain norms and criteria.

Also, there was so much useless stuff added to the Emoji-Set, that just
cannot be explained by "sales and marketing" alone. Charlotte Buff, for
example, made an excellent case against the addition of colored squares and
circles <http://Coloured Squares and Circles> in 12.0. There also was a
suggestion on how to do gender right <http://Charlotte Buff> in emoji,
which I think would have been an easy and smart solution without any
compromise regarding marketing.

I really wonder if no one in the Emoji Subcommittee has these exact
thoughts, because this is not just about correct representation, it's about
maintaining an encoding standard in a more or less future-proof way! So
maybe Emoji encoding should be approached more traditionally given where we
are right now.

And I ask you all honestly: Is there no solution in sight, other than being
ignored when submitting to the document registry?

Julian 🥌

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:06 AM James Kass via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org>
wrote:

> Charlotte Buff wrote,
>
> ⇒ Mark Davis hates me already for rightfully calling
> ⇒ out his many shortcomings, so I might as well say it
> ⇒ like it is and alienate the rest of the ESC as well.
>
> Nobody's perfect.  We all have our strengths and weaknesses; it's part
> of the human condition.  Although alienating people can bring
> considerable short-term satisfaction, in the long run building bridges
> trumps building walls.
>
> Conventional character encoding concerns may well be of secondary
> importance with respect to emoji.  The driving force may have more to
> do with sales and marketing.  In this regard, emoji are "special".
> Hence, if we approach emoji encoding issues in the traditional manner,
> ESC decisions might appear baffling or unreasonable.  But if we
> broaden our horizons and allow that sales and marketing concerns are a
> factor, we might gain a little clarity and a better understanding.
>
> Just sayin'.  ☺
>
>

Reply via email to