3 ms·
> I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this concept. I'm not struggling with any concept. It's a simple fact that as emojis continually get added to Unicod
by lapcat 3y ago
> I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this concept.
I'm not struggling with any concept.
It's a simple fact that as emojis continually get added to Unicode, not all browsers and operating systems support all emoji, and so one person sees a broken black box where another person sees the emoji. That's gross inconsistency.
- dagmx 3y ago[flagged]
- lapcat 3y ago> So let’s not use html either because someone can clutch pearls all day that some ancient browser on some EOL system might not support a specific new html tag. Ancient? The submitted article is "New emojis in 2023-2024" about "the draft emoji candidates up for approval by Unicode this September". Thus, no software even supports the new emoji yet, and ironically they have to use png images to show what the emoji will look like. I'm done talking with you. This is getting too ridiculous. Moreover, your "pearl clutching" remarks are stepping over the line and violating the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- johnofthesea 3y ago> so one person sees a broken black box where another person sees the emoji Yeah in general but in this case it is probably just me and few friends who use that site.