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

These are all great pointers which we might want to look into more closely
for expanding the longer term solution section in TR51 or any other
document encouraging folks to use stickers. May be Microsoft people who are
attending emoji SC can provide some insight on these issues, too.

I think I still prefer the current situation compared to Japanese carriers
having to go with .SWF!

↪ Shervin

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Peter Constable <petercon_at_microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Ah,yes. And Messenger “winks”. E.g.,
>
>
>
> http://www.msn-tools.net/free-msn-winks-1.htm
>
>
>
> I note that this has .swf files, and that’s what we saw one of the
> Japanese carriers saying they’d be moving to instead of PUA characters.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces_at_unicode.org] *On Behalf Of *Peter
> Constable
> *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2015 8:47 AM
> *To:* Shervin Afshar
> *Cc:* unicode_at_unicode.org
> *Subject:* RE: Future of Emoji? (was Re: Tag characters)
>
>
>
> MSN Messenger supported extensible stickers years ago. A couple of sites
> still offering add-ons:
>
>
>
> http://www.getsmile.com/
>
> http://www.smileys4msn.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Shervin Afshar [mailto:shervinafshar_at_gmail.com
> <shervinafshar_at_gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:40 PM
> *To:* Peter Constable
> *Cc:* unicode_at_unicode.org
> *Subject:* 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 - 12:59:53 CDT