From: David Starner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 11:56:37 CST
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:35 AM, <email@example.com> wrote:
> As the proposal stands a number of the emoji are in fact duplicates of
> existing unicode characters - the principle of non duplication has not
> always been applied.
> Take for example:-
> U+1F4FD CROSS MARK
> Temporary Notes: bad; NO GOOD, not approved; X in tic tac toe. Tentatively
> disunified from U+2715"
> U+2716 HEAVY MULTIPLICATION X
> Temporary Notes: Unified with U+2716"
> It is hard to see why one is unified and the other is not.
The fine details of individual character unification isn't really
relevant to the discussion at hand; the Unicode Emoji lists are a much
better place. The fact is that the unification rules were applied,
even if you disagree with some of the details.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 11:59:35 CST