6 ms·
If you're wondering what "unicode 8 skin-tone emoji" is about, here you go: http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Diversity http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Diversit
by JonnieCache 11y ago
If you're wondering what "unicode 8 skin-tone emoji" is about, here you go: http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Diversity http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Diversity
Hmmmm, I'm on ff 40.0a2 and they don't render for me: http://emojipedia.org/man-with-dark-brown-skin-tone/ http://emojipedia.org/man-with-dark-brown-skin-tone/
- kuschku 11y agoYou’ll need to have a font installed that supports them, Firefox does not bundle fonts for emoji ;)
- cromantin 11y agoIf i ever go to hell i know what my punishment will be - implement unicode
- taosat 11y agoThere is a Unicode character PERSON WITH BLOND HAIR, but no corresponding PERSON WITH BLACK HAIR. This is obviously discriminatory. We need new emoji modifiers for: blonde-hair, black-hair, brown-hair, red-hair etc.
- eterm 11y agoThat's actually covered in that article: "As to hair color, dark hair tends to be more neutral, because people of every skin tone can have black (or very dark brown) hair—however, there is no requirement for any particular hair color. One exception is PERSON WITH BLOND HAIR, which needs to have blond hair regardless of skin tone."
- nabla9 11y agoThis is bullshit.
- sp332 11y agoThe Unicode consortium kinda ran out of useful things to do and has been filling up the address space with whatever comes to mind. Don't worry about it. All the old stuff still works fine.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoHow so? If you're white, perhaps you see no problem with making everyone's skin white. But the billions of people who aren't white might have a problem with it.
- sp332 11y agoThe color was not specified before, so it was up to the font creator. I think yellow was the most common choice. The test page shows all the icons as blue in my browser. I'm not against the new changes, but I think the old version was more popular in Asian countries than anywhere else, and wasn't really pro-white.
- kuschku 11y agoWell, Apple made them mostly white. White people holding hands, white people praying, a white family. Google and Microsoft’s neutral yellow was a lot more neutral there, yes.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago> The color was not specified before, so it was up to the font creator. I think yellow was the most common choice. Nope. Usually white (Apple, Japanese phones).
- sp332 11y agoThanks for the info. Still, it's hard to believe that Japanese phones would put Caucasian people all over their emoji. Related: "Why Do the Japanese Draw Themselves as White?" https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/why-do-the-japanese-draw-themselves-as-white/ https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/why-do-the-japanese...
- Flimm 11y agoI only recently discovered that Unicode characters can now have colour in them, and frankly, I'm disappointed that we're adding complexity to an already hugely complex topic.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoUnicode characters don't have colour in them, much as they do not have a shape either. The Unicode standard does not specify the exact visual representation of any codepoint. No, fonts can have colour in them. This isn't a new thing, colour fonts have been around for decades. However, they're particularly useful for emoji.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoThe new combining characters do effectively convey a color even if it is nonspecific and limited to skin tones.