4 ms·
> It is unclear that the entity in question is actually an element of plain text... As the author pointed out, emojis seem to clearly violate this excuse. What
by irrational 7y ago
> It is unclear that the entity in question is actually an element of plain text...
As the author pointed out, emojis seem to clearly violate this excuse. What possible justification do they give for emojis? There is no way [I originally inserted the poop emoji here, but it was stripped out. That kind of reinforces my point.] is an element of plain text.
- PeterisP 7y agoThe pile of poop would not ever get accepted as a character in unicode on its own. It's there because of including an existing character encoding set (IIRC from Japanese featurephone messaging standards), which had a pile of poop character and other emoji, so for purposes of compatibility all the characters of that set must get Unicode mappings. So there's a situation of dual standards - all the weird characters that were included in any pre-Unicode text encodings for whatever arbitrary reasons are in Unicode and are always going to be there; but all the new weird characters need appropriate justification for inclusion and are likely to be denied.
- ghusbands 7y agoEmojis are used in the same context as other text to communicate in the same fashion; they were being independently recreated in many technologies and there was direct value in standardising it across systems.
- DagAgren 7y agoWhy wouldn't it be part of plain text? People type it as part of their text messages constantly. They certainly use it as a part of plain text. Nobody would type an external link symbol. It would be added by the UI presentation layer. It is not part of plain text, because it is not typed as part of textual content. But the poop emoji is.