Re: [UTR#51-8] 1.4.3 Emoji Variation Sequences: Female/Venus and Male/Mars Signs

From: Mark Davis ☕️ <>
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 08:17:08 +0200

As to your points below.
There is great demand for the choice between female and male, and there is
a specific proposal in E4.0. I have no doubt that it will be accepted.
​The addition of emoji is iterative: the acceptance of male and female
forms doesn't preclude a neutral option in a later version. As I've said,
people are actively working on that, and we'll see what they come up with.

I strongly doubt that anyone would be receptive to your ~3,000​

​characters. Nor do I think that that many characters are required to
"satisfy user expectations".
There were earlier proposals to look at somewhat broadening the number of
existing emoji. There is a very real cost to supporting more emoji
characters, and the committee is being prudent about the number of new
emoji it supports. Some vendors already give additional Unicode characters
an emoji appearance; that is not forbidden.

​You aren't wasting your time if you present a grounded proposal for
reasonably-sized additional sets of characters, based on expected usage and
other criteria we've outlined, not just "is related". This is whether
adding new characters, or making existing characters be Emoji: for example,
a set of body parts as you mention. If you see successful proposals from
the past, such as for additional sports symbols, those did not try to
propose the addition of all possible emoji of that type (eg all human
sports activities, or all species of animals), but rather looked at the
most popular sports.

​The UTC
is not trying to scare away input. We have accepted many proposals from
"small and independent parties". It *does* mean that such independent​

​parties have to provide a good argument for their proposals, based on
usage and other criteria.


On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Christoph Päper <> wrote:

> TL;DR: Unicode properties should reflect user expectations, not vendor
> choices.
> Mark Davis ☕️ <>:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Christoph Päper <
>> 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.


> Sorry, this got long.

​yes​. shorter is better
Received on Sat Sep 03 2016 - 01:17:58 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Sep 03 2016 - 01:17:58 CDT