Re: New Unicode Emoji draft, available for review

On 11/05/2014 02:48 PM, Rick McGowan wrote:
> FYI, Posting this on behalf of Mark Davis... Something in his original
> reply message is apparently toxic to our mail gateway that it can't get
> through. (Investigating.)
>
> May be the literal U+1F4A9, which I have (I'm sorry) redacted below.
>
> Rick

The first icon was not U+1F4A9, but U+1F60F SMIRKING FACE.

Remarkably, Rick's message seems to me to indicate that some emoji
encoded in Unicode are considered by some servers to be obscene! I
never considered the possibility of an obscene code point before.

FWIW, my respondent, hopefully satirically, mentioned this as a basis
for encoding further modifier characters, suitable for 1F4A9:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_stool_scale
> ------------
>
> > Could be either one [U+1F4A9]
> >
> > The exact contents of minimal and optional characters is something
> that we
> > want to get feedback on. But I don't think [U+1F4A9] is in the running!
> >
> > BTW, I'm seeing about 250 new news articles on this, per hour (in
> English).
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=emoji+unicode&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:h
> >
> > Plus a scattering of others, s.a.
> >
> http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/unicode-consortium-emojis-demnaechst-fuer-alle-hautfarben-a-1001125.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode_at_unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>

_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Received on Sat Nov 08 2014 - 00:12:15 CST