4 ms·

Am I alone in thinking that emoji should be completely removed from the Unicode standard? The character set is an amazing collaboration between companies and co

Am I alone in thinking that emoji should be completely removed from the Unicode standard? The character set is an amazing collaboration between companies and countries to place all glyphs used by humans in a standardized collection... And then there's a bunch of smiley faces. Seems like someone at the Unicode Consortium accidentally downloaded a "free smiley pack" malware from the 2000's that injected itself into the standard draft. Just deprecate that garbage. There's already a standard to represent all conceivable pictograms: <img> tags and PNG.

skookumchuck 8y ago
I'm with you. Inventing emoji has gone way beyond the charter of the Unicode Consortium. One ginormous problem of inventing and adding emoji is there is no credible end to the process. The numeric range of code points will be filled up and then what?
- cryptonector 8y ago
  Then it will be expanded, and UTF-16 will be put to rest, and UTF-8 liberated to encode the full 32-bit namespace. Hopefully we're a few decades away from that eventuality... I do hope the UC is reserving enough codepoints for existing human languages, and new Han/Kanji.
slavik81 8y ago
> Seems like someone at the Unicode Consortium accidentally downloaded a "free smiley pack" malware from the 2000's. A 'free smiley pack' actually kinda describes where it came from. It was the standardization of symbols used by Japanese text networks. It's basically like if the ubiquitous vBulletin smilies had been standardized. I don't think it can be deprecated, but it should probably follow the same rules as other Unicode symbols. It's bizarre how easily emojis are added to the standard in comparison to other symbols. Especially when there are serious problems with differing implementations of the standard.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  It's not at all bizarre. Adding symbols from existing scripts requires research. It requires experts in that script to document the new symbols. It is exceedingly difficult to fix character definition errors. Adding emoji is fairly simple by comparison. All you need is someone to submit a drawing, character name, and character metadata, and then maybe consensus. Because a new emoji a brand new character, no research is needed to avoid definition errors.
  - slavik81 8y ago
    I don't think that's it. Proposals for stuff like additional punctuation[1] go nowhere. Wikipedia has to resort to using SVGs to discuss them[2]. I also think it's also much harder to define an emoji than you're giving it credit for. There's been a lot of unintentional variation in meaning between implementations, and I think part of that is due to a lack of guidance by the standard (particularly in smilies). [1]: http://unicode.org/L2/L2011/11232r-sup-punct-proposal.pdf http://unicode.org/L2/L2011/11232r-sup-punct-proposal.pdf [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation#%22Love_point%22_and_similar_marks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation#%22Love_point%22_a...
    - cryptonector 8y ago
      Implementations of emoji don't implement "meaning" -- meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Unless you mean the specific artwork. But some variation is obviously to be expected, not unlike... the variation you see in fonts.
      - slavik81 8y ago
        Emoji are less abstract than words. That is to say, the shape of a word is less connected to the thing it depicts. It barely changes the perceived meaning of the word "face" if it's depicted in Arial or Times New Roman, but it makes a big difference to the perceived meaning of a hypothetical "face" emoji whether that face is smiling or frowning in different fonts. When you have a concrete depiction of something, you are forced to provide details. The problem is that users cannot tell what details are standard and which are only in their font. Hence more guidance is needed for creators of emoji to ensure important, necessary details are consistent. Scott McCloud discusses iconography and the differences between how words and pictures convey ideas in "Understanding Comics". I don't think he has a perfect model, but his Big Triangle is a pretty good starting point for a discussion. http://scottmccloud.com/4-inventions/triangle/index.html http://scottmccloud.com/4-inventions/triangle/index.html The further you go left in that triangle, the more guidance is required to ensure that all implementations are depicting the same thing.
cryptonector 8y ago
You're not alone, but... riddle me this: what's the difference between emoji and ideographs (e.g., Chinese Han / Japanese Kanji characters)?? I submit that the only difference is... time. Perhaps a better questions would be: Do you believe that we should close the set of human language scripts? If so, when? That's a serious question. You might say that we should not invent new scripts (there goes Klingon), only accept new Unicode codepoint assignments for existing scripts. OK, but, really, you want no evolution of scripts? I don't think the Chinese -for example- would appreciate that, as Han/Kanji have been added over time, and even recently[0][1]. So perhaps you might say "just don't invent new scripts". Ok, but, why not? Why should we close one enormous aspect of human culture to innovation?! And what if some language authority (e.g., the Spanish Royal Academy) were to decide to incorporate emoji? International politics has had a definite and substantial effect on Unicode's design and evolution -- do you think that the Unicode Consortium can somehow start to resist political pressure where it has not been able to?! You can see where I'm going with this. Emoji are new ideographs. Love them or hate them, that's what they are. Me? I like phonetic systems, but I understand that ideographs add expression dimensions that most of us outside countries where ideographs prevail... just are not even aware of. There are word games to be played in, e.g., Japanese, which will just not translate well to English -- though to be fair the reverse is also true, just in a completely different way. I don't think opposition to emoji is politically tenable, not in the long term, and probably not in the short term either. [0] https://www.quora.com/Are-new-Chinese-characters-still-being-invented https://www.quora.com/Are-new-Chinese-characters-still-being... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_j%C5%8Dy%C5%8D_kanji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_j%C5%8Dy%C5%8D_kanji
- pvg 8y ago
  The difference is that Chinese characters are not ideographs. Which is a pretty big difference.
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ideograph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ideograph The only substantial difference I can think of to support not having Unicode codepoint assignments for emoji is this: there is no calligraphy for emoji -- the vast majority of non-artist emoji users cannot write more than a handful of emoji with pen and paper. But soon we might find that most people cannot write with pen an paper in any script anyways. Cursive has already gone into the dustbin of history, whether we like it or not.

skookumchuck 8y ago

I'm with you. Inventing emoji has gone way beyond the charter of the Unicode Consortium. One ginormous problem of inventing and adding emoji is there is no credible end to the process. The numeric range of code points will be filled up and then what?

cryptonector 8y ago
Then it will be expanded, and UTF-16 will be put to rest, and UTF-8 liberated to encode the full 32-bit namespace. Hopefully we're a few decades away from that eventuality... I do hope the UC is reserving enough codepoints for existing human languages, and new Han/Kanji.

slavik81 8y ago

> Seems like someone at the Unicode Consortium accidentally downloaded a "free smiley pack" malware from the 2000's. A 'free smiley pack' actually kinda describes where it came from. It was the standardization of symbols used by Japanese text networks. It's basically like if the ubiquitous vBulletin smilies had been standardized. I don't think it can be deprecated, but it should probably follow the same rules as other Unicode symbols. It's bizarre how easily emojis are added to the standard in comparison to other symbols. Especially when there are serious problems with differing implementations of the standard.

cryptonector 8y ago
It's not at all bizarre. Adding symbols from existing scripts requires research. It requires experts in that script to document the new symbols. It is exceedingly difficult to fix character definition errors. Adding emoji is fairly simple by comparison. All you need is someone to submit a drawing, character name, and character metadata, and then maybe consensus. Because a new emoji a brand new character, no research is needed to avoid definition errors.
- slavik81 8y ago
  I don't think that's it. Proposals for stuff like additional punctuation[1] go nowhere. Wikipedia has to resort to using SVGs to discuss them[2]. I also think it's also much harder to define an emoji than you're giving it credit for. There's been a lot of unintentional variation in meaning between implementations, and I think part of that is due to a lack of guidance by the standard (particularly in smilies). [1]: http://unicode.org/L2/L2011/11232r-sup-punct-proposal.pdf http://unicode.org/L2/L2011/11232r-sup-punct-proposal.pdf [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation#%22Love_point%22_and_similar_marks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation#%22Love_point%22_a...
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    Implementations of emoji don't implement "meaning" -- meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Unless you mean the specific artwork. But some variation is obviously to be expected, not unlike... the variation you see in fonts.
    - slavik81 8y ago
      Emoji are less abstract than words. That is to say, the shape of a word is less connected to the thing it depicts. It barely changes the perceived meaning of the word "face" if it's depicted in Arial or Times New Roman, but it makes a big difference to the perceived meaning of a hypothetical "face" emoji whether that face is smiling or frowning in different fonts. When you have a concrete depiction of something, you are forced to provide details. The problem is that users cannot tell what details are standard and which are only in their font. Hence more guidance is needed for creators of emoji to ensure important, necessary details are consistent. Scott McCloud discusses iconography and the differences between how words and pictures convey ideas in "Understanding Comics". I don't think he has a perfect model, but his Big Triangle is a pretty good starting point for a discussion. http://scottmccloud.com/4-inventions/triangle/index.html http://scottmccloud.com/4-inventions/triangle/index.html The further you go left in that triangle, the more guidance is required to ensure that all implementations are depicting the same thing.

cryptonector 8y ago

You're not alone, but... riddle me this: what's the difference between emoji and ideographs (e.g., Chinese Han / Japanese Kanji characters)?? I submit that the only difference is... time. Perhaps a better questions would be: Do you believe that we should close the set of human language scripts? If so, when? That's a serious question. You might say that we should not invent new scripts (there goes Klingon), only accept new Unicode codepoint assignments for existing scripts. OK, but, really, you want no evolution of scripts? I don't think the Chinese -for example- would appreciate that, as Han/Kanji have been added over time, and even recently[0][1]. So perhaps you might say "just don't invent new scripts". Ok, but, why not? Why should we close one enormous aspect of human culture to innovation?! And what if some language authority (e.g., the Spanish Royal Academy) were to decide to incorporate emoji? International politics has had a definite and substantial effect on Unicode's design and evolution -- do you think that the Unicode Consortium can somehow start to resist political pressure where it has not been able to?! You can see where I'm going with this. Emoji are new ideographs. Love them or hate them, that's what they are. Me? I like phonetic systems, but I understand that ideographs add expression dimensions that most of us outside countries where ideographs prevail... just are not even aware of. There are word games to be played in, e.g., Japanese, which will just not translate well to English -- though to be fair the reverse is also true, just in a completely different way. I don't think opposition to emoji is politically tenable, not in the long term, and probably not in the short term either. [0] https://www.quora.com/Are-new-Chinese-characters-still-being-invented https://www.quora.com/Are-new-Chinese-characters-still-being... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_j%C5%8Dy%C5%8D_kanji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_j%C5%8Dy%C5%8D_kanji

pvg 8y ago
The difference is that Chinese characters are not ideographs. Which is a pretty big difference.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ideograph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ideograph The only substantial difference I can think of to support not having Unicode codepoint assignments for emoji is this: there is no calligraphy for emoji -- the vast majority of non-artist emoji users cannot write more than a handful of emoji with pen and paper. But soon we might find that most people cannot write with pen an paper in any script anyways. Cursive has already gone into the dustbin of history, whether we like it or not.