[UTR#51-8] 1.4.3 Emoji Variation Sequences: Female/Venus and Male/Mars Signs
verdy_p at wanadoo.fr
Thu Aug 25 17:01:10 CDT 2016
2016-08-25 16:52 GMT+02:00 Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper at crissov.de>:
> TL;DR: Unicode properties should reflect user expectations, not vendor
> Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at macchiato.com>:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Christoph Päper <
> christoph.paeper at crissov.de> wrote:
> >> 1. it’s incomplete without an explicit neutral/ambiguous alternative and
> > As I said, people are actively investigating what to do about such
> cases. It may be that the solution is to add ⚲ U+26B2 Neuter, but maybe
> not. We'll see as they develop further.
> Natively speaking a language which can explicitly mark any actor noun with
> a morpheme as female/feminine, but neither as neutral nor as male/masculine
> – a generic version of English ‘actor/actress’, ‘waiter/waitress’,
> ‘prince/princess’ – and having intensely dealt with guidelines for
> corporate languages and public speech, I’ll assure you that a feminism/LGBT
> shitstorm will be heading for UTC and vendors if binary gender became
> mandatory for profession emojis. You should not approve Google’s and
> Apple’s ZWJ sequences without a neutral option.
In my opinion such sequence is not even needed. Unless sequences are
annotated with a gender, or skin color or similar extension, they are
neutral and may be represented using any available option (even if it's not
really neutral). Joining a "neutral" character will not add any meaning, so
it is overkill to just standardize it in sequences where it will be simply
ignored/discarded to use the same glyph as the default glyph for the
initial character outside any ligature (it should be the same glyph in all
cases: if there's a really neutral glyph, it will be used by default for
the base character).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode