5 ms·

Yes, and emoji came from emoticons, meeting a need to express more complex ideas. Unicode adopted emoji after they were popularised.

• WalterBright 5y ago
  > meeting a need to express more complex ideas Still not necessary to have special Unicode code points for them. :poop: should do just fine. No need for more than that.
  • pests 5y ago
    :poop: was never made into stuffed animals or pillows either. Branding and imagry means something to some people despite not to you.
    • WalterBright 5y ago
      What does branding have to do with Unicode? Is there a Unicode code point for the coca-cola trademark or the Amazon smile?
      • coldacid 5y ago
        Probably by Unicode 16 there will be. :p
        • grlass 5y ago
          Not in the Unicode guidelines as they currently stand ':). They are very explicit that this is not permitted [1]. Also, RE :poop: 1. Huffman encoding philosophy - encode frequently used symbols using fewer bytes. 2. Standards are helpful, :poop: is very English-centric, whereas U+1F4A9 is much more interpretable. [1] https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html#Selection_Factors_Inappropriate https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html#Selection_Factors_I...
          • coldacid 5y ago
            >Not in the Unicode guidelines as they currently stand ':). I know, I'm just being humorously facetious. (Or at least I'd like to think that I am.)
  • dkdbejwi383 5y ago
    What about this one: :couple-with-heart-woman-man-light-skin-tone-medium-light-skin-tone:
    • WalterBright 5y ago
      Nothing wrong with that. The renderer can do what it likes with that. The thing is, once you open the door to every-picture-must-have-a-unique-code-point, where do you stop? How many trillions of code points are needed? Hey, Unicode should take the next logical step, and allow embedded Javascript! What could possibly go wrong with that?
    • AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      Hey, it degrades gracefully when displayed on a system that doesn't support that glyph. Sounds like a nice feature to me.