From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jun 04 2010 - 08:02:07 CDT
William_J_G Overington <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 2 June 2010, Doug Ewell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> However, the emoji proposal became far less objectionable
>> (at least to me) when color and animation ceased to be
>> considered as defining characteristics of plain-text
>> characters, ...
> I noticed the use of colours other than black and white in several
> groups of emoji.
There are many characters in this block whose name includes a color,
just as we currently have WHITE and BLACK squares, arrows, etc.
However, the representative glyphs for characters like RED APPLE and
GREEN APPLE are no longer differentiated solely by color, as they were
in the initial proposals. Names are just names, and glyphs are now
monochrome (and not moving), so that satisfied me.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2010 - 08:04:32 CDT