3 ms·

"Political statement with every emoji" sounds about right. Certain groups hate the fact that the Internet allows people to overlook the boundaries of race, nat

"Political statement with every emoji" sounds about right. Certain groups hate the fact that the Internet allows people to overlook the boundaries of race, nationality and gender. It robs those groups of fuel for manufacturing outrage and leveraging it for political power. They'd love to "fix" it. You think I'm wrong? Okay, then tell me this. Why can't we just color emoji a neutral color (green, blue) and be done with it? Nope, instead we're adding this insanely complicated stuff to Unicode definition.

masklinn 11y ago
There's no complexity to combining characters, it's something that's been there all along. What's the technical difference between e becoming é and [boy] becoming [black boy]? There isn't one is the answer Both U+1F3FB "EMOJI MODIFIER FITZPATRICK TYPE-1-2" and U+00B4 "ACUTE ACCENT" are non-reorderable modifier symbols. U+00B4 is somewhat more complex actually, because it's a diacritic with Break_Before linebreak and specific arabic shaping.
- colllectorof 11y ago
  There's no complexity to combining characters Except that all of it needs to be translated to code, it involves operations with color (or multiplying the number of certain icons by 5), it needs to have a slightly different behavior (i.e. more code) on black-and-white screens, and so on. And just because there is already high level of complexity involved in something does not mean you should gleefully add to it.
  - masklinn 11y ago
    Combining characters and ligatures have existed since Unicode 1.0 in 1991, skin colors aren't a different mechanism and if they require more code because you've hardcoded either I'm sorry to report you're a moron. The only thing which may have required more code is multi-color font glyphs and that's not a new things of emoji skin colors that was at best a new optional thing back when emoji were first introduced. > it needs to have a slightly different behavior (i.e. more code) on black-and-white screens No?
- krick 11y ago
  Actually there is. This stuff caused problems ever since it appeared. There have been known bugs and vulnerabilities caused by combined characters. More than that, I don't think I can provide any references now, but I remember some vulnerabilities caused by improper implementation of emoji alone in applications supposed to support them. So both always were somewhat of a problem, except combining characters are obviously more important and hence more justified. Now we have both combined. What unexpected behavior this will lead to? None of us can know.
- weinzierl 11y ago
  There's no complexity to combining characters Show me one fully compliant and correct implementation. Only one. I'm serious.

masklinn 11y ago

There's no complexity to combining characters, it's something that's been there all along. What's the technical difference between e becoming é and [boy] becoming [black boy]? There isn't one is the answer Both U+1F3FB "EMOJI MODIFIER FITZPATRICK TYPE-1-2" and U+00B4 "ACUTE ACCENT" are non-reorderable modifier symbols. U+00B4 is somewhat more complex actually, because it's a diacritic with Break_Before linebreak and specific arabic shaping.

colllectorof 11y ago
There's no complexity to combining characters Except that all of it needs to be translated to code, it involves operations with color (or multiplying the number of certain icons by 5), it needs to have a slightly different behavior (i.e. more code) on black-and-white screens, and so on. And just because there is already high level of complexity involved in something does not mean you should gleefully add to it.
- masklinn 11y ago
  Combining characters and ligatures have existed since Unicode 1.0 in 1991, skin colors aren't a different mechanism and if they require more code because you've hardcoded either I'm sorry to report you're a moron. The only thing which may have required more code is multi-color font glyphs and that's not a new things of emoji skin colors that was at best a new optional thing back when emoji were first introduced. > it needs to have a slightly different behavior (i.e. more code) on black-and-white screens No?
krick 11y ago
Actually there is. This stuff caused problems ever since it appeared. There have been known bugs and vulnerabilities caused by combined characters. More than that, I don't think I can provide any references now, but I remember some vulnerabilities caused by improper implementation of emoji alone in applications supposed to support them. So both always were somewhat of a problem, except combining characters are obviously more important and hence more justified. Now we have both combined. What unexpected behavior this will lead to? None of us can know.
weinzierl 11y ago
There's no complexity to combining characters Show me one fully compliant and correct implementation. Only one. I'm serious.