Re: a suggestion new emoji .

From: Mark Davis ☕️ <>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:19:27 +0200

​I'd agree about reading and following

As far as petitions go, we take them with a sizable grain of salt. See In the
particular cases you cite, we had sufficient evidence about prospective
usage independent of petitions (which usually started after we had settled
on the character anyway). Paella was a bit of an exception; I think the
work that the petitioners did upfront helped to convince the subcommittee
that there would be sufficient usage, and the main issues were around
distinctiveness and generality.

Mark <>

*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Andrew West <> wrote:

> On 19 August 2015 at 12:36, Otto Stolz <> wrote:
> >
> > You cannot suggest a new character just because it would
> > be “nice to have”. Rather, you have to supply evidence that
> > an additional character really needs to be encoded, e. g.
> > because it is already widely used in print and cannot be
> > represented in Unicode.
> Well that may once have been the case, but certainly isn't any longer
> with respect to emoji, especially emoji representing food and drink.
> I suggest Emma reads Unicode Technical Report 51
> especially section 1.2 Encoding
> Considerations and Annex C Selection Factors, then start a petition to
> the Unicode Consortium on, and when she has 10,000
> signatures make a formal request to the UTC. Petitions don't
> guarantee acceptance, but widely-petitioned emoji such as taco, cheese
> wedge, paella and whisky tumbler have been successful.
> Andrew
Received on Wed Aug 19 2015 - 09:21:14 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Aug 19 2015 - 09:21:14 CDT