Re: Submissions open for 2020 Emoji

It would also be useful if "Added to larger set" mentioned which proposal
it was added to.

Last December I proposed emojification for U+1F58E LEFT WRITING HAND, and
that's marked as merged but it's unclear which proposal it was merged with.
(Also the document isn't on L2 yet, I'm not sure why)

Thanks,

-Manish

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:59 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode <
unicode_at_unicode.org> wrote:

> BTW, Slide 23 on http://unicode.org/emoji/slides.html ("Unicode
> Resources: Specs, Data, and Code") shows one view of the relative sizes of
> Unicode Consortium projects, divided up by cldr, icu, encoding (eg UTC
> output), and also breaks out emoji.
>
> (It does need a bit of updating, since we have added emoji names to cldr.)
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Mark Davis ☕️ <mark_at_macchiato.com> wrote:
>
>> > imagine I discover that someone has already proposed the emoji that I
>> am interested in
>>
>> In some cases we've have contacted people to see if they want to engage
>> with other proposers. But to handle larger numbers we'd need a simple,
>> light-weight way to let people know, while maintaining people's privacy
>> when they want it.
>>
>> > Also, there seems to be no systematic reason...
>>
>> The ESC periodically prioritizes some of the larger sets and forwards a
>> list to the UTC.
>>
>> >If an emoji proposal is well-formed and fits the general scope it
>> should be forwarded to UTC.
>>
>> Emoji are a relatively small part of the work of the consortium, and
>> should remain that way. So the UTC depends on the ESC to evaluate the
>> quality and priority of proposals, based on the factors described.
>>
>> > Others are outdated, for instance because the larger set they have
>> been added to has already been processed by UTC and they were declined.
>> Some categories have only a single entry, others are clearly aliases of
>> each other or subcategories.
>> > I would like to help clean up the data, e.g. by commenting on the
>> Google Spreadsheet that is embedded on the Unicode page. How can I do that
>> as an individual member?
>>
>> That would be helpful, thanks. What I would suggest is taking a copy of
>> the sheet, dumping into a spreadsheet (Google or Excel) and adding a column
>> for your suggestions. You can then submit that. Note that the numbers are
>> just to provide a count, there is no binding connection between them and
>> the rest of the line.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Christoph Päper via Unicode <
>> unicode_at_unicode.org> wrote:
>>
>>> announcements_at_unicode.org:
>>> >
>>> > The emoji subcommittee has also produced a new page which shows the
>>> > Emoji Requests <http://www.unicode.org/emoji/emoji-requests.html>
>>> > submitted so far. You can look at what other people have proposed or
>>> > suggested. In many cases, people have made suggestions, but have not
>>> > followed through with complete submission forms, or have submitted
>>> > forms, but not followed through on requested modifications to the
>>> forms.
>>>
>>> This good news! However, imagine I discover that someone has already
>>> proposed the emoji that I am interested in, but their formal proposal needs
>>> some work: From the public data I can not see when this proposal has been
>>> received or whether it has been updated. Since I also cannot contact the
>>> author, either I have to hope they are still working on the proposal or I
>>> have to submit a separate proposal of my own, duplicating all the work.
>>>
>>> Also, there seems to be no systematic reason for which proposals get
>>> shelved as "Added to larger set" while related ones (e.g. random animals)
>>> progress to the UTC. The ESC should not have this power of gatekeeping. If
>>> an emoji proposal is well-formed and fits the general scope it should be
>>> forwarded to UTC, hence be published in the L2 repository. Alternatively,
>>> the ESC should collect *all* proposals that semantically belong to a larger
>>> set (e.g. animals) in a composite document and forward this annually, for
>>> instance.
>>>
>>> Some entries are also opaque or ambiguous, i.e. not helpful, e.g.:
>>>
>>> 705 Six Chinese Styles Added to larger set Mixed
>>> 706 Six Chinese-style Emoji No proposal form Other
>>>
>>> Others are outdated, for instance because the larger set they have been
>>> added to has already been processed by UTC and they were declined. Some
>>> categories have only a single entry, others are clearly aliases of each
>>> other or subcategories. I would like to help clean up the data, e.g. by
>>> commenting on the Google Spreadsheet that is embedded on the Unicode page.
>>> How can I do that as an individual member?
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Fri Apr 20 2018 - 16:14:55 CDT