Re: Future of Emoji? (was Re: Tag characters)

Good point. I missed these while looking into compatibility symbols. Of
course, as with Yahoo[1] and MSN[2] Messenger emoji sets, most of these are
mappable to current or proposed sets of Unicode emoji (e.g. Lips Sealed ≈
U+1F910 ZIPPER-MOUTH FACE). It would be interesting to see how the extended
support for flags, most of smiley faces, objects, etc. on all platforms
would affect this approach.

My idea of a sticker-based solution is something more like Facebook's[3] or
Line's[4] implementations.

[1]: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15059-emoji-im-yahoo.pdf
[2]: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15058-emoji-im-msn.pdf
[3]:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/facebook-stickers-comments_n_5982546.html
[4]: https://creator.line.me/en/guideline/

↪ Shervin

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Peter Constable <petercon_at_microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Skype uses stickers, including animated stickers. Here’s the documented
> set:
>
>
>
> https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA12330/what-is-the-full-list-of-emoticons
>
>
>
> And if you search, you’ll find lots more “hidden” emoticons, like
> “(bartlett)”.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Shervin Afshar [mailto:shervinafshar_at_gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:12 PM
> *To:* Peter Constable
> *Cc:* unicode_at_unicode.org
> *Subject:* Future of Emoji? (was Re: Tag characters)
>
>
>
> Peter,
>
>
>
> This very topic was discussed in last meeting of the subcommittee and my
> impression is that there are plans to promote the use of embedded graphics
> (aka stickers) either through expansions to section 8 of TR51 or through
> some other means. It should also be noted that none of current members of
> Unicode seem to have a sticker-based implementation (with the exception of
> an experimental limited trial by Twitter[1]).
>
>
>
> [1]: http://mashable.com/2015/04/16/twitter-star-wars-emoji/
>
>
>
>
> ↪ Shervin
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Peter Constable <petercon_at_microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> And yet UTC devotes lots of effort (with an entire subcommittee) to
> encode more emoji as characters, but no effort toward any preferred longer
> term solution not based on characters.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces_at_unicode.org] *On Behalf Of *Shervin
> Afshar
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:27 PM
> *To:* wjgo_10009_at_btinternet.com
> *Cc:* unicode_at_unicode.org
> *Subject:* Re: Tag characters
>
>
>
> Thinking about this further, could the technique be used to solve the
> requirements of
> section 8 Longer Term Solutions
>
>
>
> IMO, the industry preferred longer term solution (which is also discussed
> in that section with few existing examples) for emoji, is not going to be
> based on characters.
>
>
>
>
> ↪ Shervin
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:40 PM, William_J_G Overington <
> wjgo_10009_at_btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > What else would be possible if the same sort of technique were applied
> to another base character?
>
>
> Thinking about this further, could the technique be used to solve the
> requirements of
>
> section 8 Longer Term Solutions
>
> of
>
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/tr51-2.html
>
> ?
>
>
> Both colour pixel map and colour OpenType vector font solutions would be
> possible.
>
>
> Colour voxel map and colour vector 3d solids solutions are worth thinking
> about too as fun coding thought experiments that could possibly lead to
> useful practical results.
>
>
>
>
> William Overington
>
>
> 14 May 2015
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri May 15 2015 - 00:42:18 CDT