3 ms·
A dingbat typeface can't be easily used within regular text of another typeface, which is by and large how emoji are used. The debate isn't about how to standa
by Zikes 11y ago
A dingbat typeface can't be easily used within regular text of another typeface, which is by and large how emoji are used.
The debate isn't about how to standardize the display of symbols on platforms, but how to allow the incorporation those symbols into everyday text.
- masklinn 11y ago> A dingbat typeface can't be easily used within regular text of another typeface, which is by and large how emoji are used. Are you confused? U+2701 UPPER BLADE SCISSORS is a Unicode codepoint, it can most definitely be used "within regular text of another typeface".
- Zikes 11y agoYes, I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting a font that replaced existing character codepoints with symbols, along the lines of wingdings.
- masklinn 11y agoAh, no I was pointing out that the "argle bargle emoji are an insult to unicode" crowd were nowhere to be seen between the addition of dingbats symbols, geometric shapes or box drawing symbols circa 1991 and the integration of emoji in 2010, since which they have become strangely vocal.
- Zikes 11y agoI agree, however given the limited scope of dingbats symbols and the (at the time) unlikeliness that it would grow significantly, I can understand the different reactions. Not to mention there weren't many forums for the general populace to disagree back in 1991.
- masklinn 11y agoBah, bullshit I say, the argle bargle crowd didn't make a noise when Unicode 4 added support for the fucking shavian alphabet either, which lest you be confused is not an ancient language but a synthetic phonetic alternative english alphabet invented in the 60s. > given the limited scope of dingbats symbols There is no limited scope, dingbats is just stuff that's neither numbers nor "letters".