Why is this surprising? Encoding a script is many many orders of magnitude more complex than encoding emoji. This is especially true given that the scripts that remain unencoded are largely used by small populations (or, in the case of historic scripts, by *no* population at all). It is a complex, painstaking business.
In many ways emoji is actually a godsend for this effort, since it attracts attention to Unicode programs such as Adopt a Character, which funds script encoding grants, and ultimately result in Unicode being better able to serve its deeper mission of making all the world's languages digitally accessible. What's more, when implementations support emoji features, such as ZWJ sequences, variation selectors, etc., they are also building necessary mechanisms for supporting complex scripts (many of which are recently encoded or on the roadmap). Addison Phillips Sr. Principal SDE – I18N (Amazon) Chair (W3C I18N WG) Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of > > Shriramana Sharma via Unicode > > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 3:24 AM > > To: UnicoDe List <email@example.com> > > Subject: Emoji boom? > > > > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L-curdoc.htm > > > > The number of emoji-related proposals seems to be increasing compared > > to the number of script-related ones. > > > > Have we reached a plateau re scripts encoding? > > > > Somehow this seems sad to me considering the great role Unicode played > > in bringing Indic scripts (from my POV as an Indian) to mainstream > > digital devices. > > > > -- > > Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा 𑀰𑁆𑀭𑀻𑀭𑀫𑀡𑀰𑀭𑁆𑀫𑀸