This page is a compilation of formal public feedback received so far. See Feedback for further information on this issue, how to discuss it, and how to provide feedback.
Date/Time: Thu Aug 11 18:28:37 CDT 2016
Name: Roozbeh Pournader
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: Comments on PRI 330 (UTR #51)
Display of emoji zwj sequences
==============================
There is new language in Section 2.4, Emoji Implementation Notes, suggesting
that a sequence that matches the syntax of an emoji_zwj_sequence:
“*should* be displayed with an emoji presentation by default, *even* when an
emoji zwj element is a singleton with Emoji_Presentation=No.”
This means that a sequence such as <#, ZWJ, 1>, which could have been used to
represent a ligated “#1” glyph, would now get rendered as emoji. We believe this
is too aggressive and is disruptive to non-emoji text, especially considering
that several textual characters such as the digits, the asterisk, the number
sign, and the copyright sign are all considered emoji.
We suggest the following language instead:
“*should* be displayed with an emoji presentation by default when the
*first* emoji zwj element is a singleton with Emoji_Presentation=Yes or the
*first* emoji zwj element is followed by an emoji variation selector (or
both).”
Additionally, the new language in section 4, saying “Note that variation
selectors are not needed in emoji zwj sequences” would need to be modified.
Sample other flags
==================
We suggest the figure labeled “Sample Other Flags” to be removed completely.
This contains incorrect glyphs (see, e.g., the flag used for Reunion) and is
incomplete anyway. Additionally, Unicode does not recommend any glyph for flags.
The UN flag
===========
This is the language we have received from the UN regarding potential
implementation of the UN flag in our products:
“The UN flag and the UN emblem are the same thing. Their use and display are
highly restricted and essentially limited to the Organization itself.”
In this light, we believe that standardizing the flag of the UN in any
publication by the Unicode Consortium is inappropriate, and is comparable to
encoding trademarked product logos.
Please note that we don’t have any objection to a standardized mechanism to
represent the UN flag, but Android cannot support the UN flag given that we have
been explicitly forbidden from using it. We are very concerned about
standardizing it. If Unicode were to secure permission from the UN for products
that would implement the Unicode standards to support the flag, we would be OK
for the UN flag to be standardized in UTR #51.
Date/Time: Fri Aug 12 10:23:03 CDT 2016
Name: E.
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: Gender in Proposed Update UTR #51, Unicode Emoji (Version 4.0)
The proposed gender distinctions follow outdated gender stereotypes, and they render trans and genderqueer people invisible. PREGNANT WOMAN needs more gender options because people with very different genders (and gendered looks) have the ability to get pregnant. Trans and intersex men as well as genderqueer people might all be able to. They are not represented by a pregnant woman emoji. BRIDE WITH VEIL is cliché, anyone getting married could wear a veil. It needs more gender options. MAN IN TUXEDO and MAN IN BUSINESS SUIT LEVITATING also need more gender options, why would only men wear these types of clothes? Women and genderqueer people can and do wear these and are not represented. Also, the following need a third gender option so they don't exclude genderqueer people: health worker, judge, pilot, farmer, cook, student, singer, artist, teacher, factory worker, technologist, mechanic, office worker, scientist, astronaut, firefighter.
Date/Time: Fri Aug 12 12:03:39 CDT 2016
Name: Charlotte Buff
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI #330: Gender in Emoji
After seeing the associated data file for gendered ZWJ sequences (http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/4.0/emoji-zwj-sequences.txt) I was deeply shocked that Unicode still holds onto the idea of binary gender. I wrote to the Unicode Technical Committee *twice* about why a third gender option is vitally important (L2/16-169, L2/16-193). And yet, Unicode has failed to even acknowledge that non-binary genders exist. Not only that, but the list of gender-modifiable emoji also completely excludes characters such as PREGNANT WOMAN and MAN WITH GUA PI MAO. There is simply no excuse for that. It is a damn shame. Given that my comments were on the agenda for UTC 148 I have no other choice but to assume that my concerns were heard but ignored. You cannot exclude gender variants just because you don't feel like they are needed. It's either all or nothing. You also cannot pretend that male and female are the only two possible genders. Non-binary people have the same right to use emoji as men and women do. Unicode is on the best way to *create* gender discrimination rather than solving it. I am also not accepting the excuse that it's really all about gender display rather than actual gender. If that were the case then a) there still wouldn't be only two options because there are more than two ways that humans can look, b) they really should not be called "male"/"man" and "female"/"woman", and c) it would be rather embarrassing for Unicode to support this concept in the most archaic, stereotypical way possible. Let me repeat again what I have stated before in the two documents I sent: ALL emoji representing adult humans must be available in three gendered variants: Male, female, and neutral/other. And I mean all. Even if you don't think men can become pregnant or women can wear tuxedos. They can and they do. Use BUST IN SILHOUETTE or WHITE SMILING FACE or anything as a base character for new profession sequences. Use MEDIUM WHITE CIRCLE or no character at all as a gender modifier for existing emoji. The specific implementation is not important as long as the third option exists. The LGBT+ community and transgender people in particular will not take this lightly. Without gender options for all people emoji and without a third gender available Unicode will only further cement the wrong and discriminatory view that only two genders exist, and that gender stereotypes are not only true but also encouraged. Transgender people, non-binary people, people who don't conform to outdated gender norms have to live in constant fear for their health and safety. Society is hostile and ruthless. Please don't make it worse by further erasing them from the public consciousness.
Date/Time: Mon Aug 15 10:14:23 CDT 2016
Name: William Overington
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI330 Emoji ZWJ sequences
Could you possibly clarify something please? When an emoji ZWJ sequence is used so that a glyph, (let us here call it Gq, different from each of the glyphs G1 G2 G3 of the constituent characters C1 C2 C3 respectively of the emoji ZWJ sequence C1 ZWJ C2 ZWJ C3) becomes displayed, compliantly with Unicode rules, is that ZWJ sequence C1 ZWJ C2 ZWJ C3 any sequence that any font maker chooses to use, or is that sequence only one of a number of sequences that is officially included in a list produced and published (or planned to be produced and published in due course) by the Unicode Consortium? I have looked at TR51 and various documents in the Unicode Technical Committee Document Register and the situation seems to me unclear. William Overington Monday 15 August 2016
Date/Time: Fri Aug 19 18:02:55 CDT 2016
Name: Kennedy Stomps
Report Type: Problems / Feedback about website
Opt Subject: Sexism in Full Emoji Data chart
Hi, I was very surprised to notice the "keywords" listed for the "Girl" emoji (U+1F467) on this page: http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html. The keywords for the Boy, Woman, and Man emoji are "boy", "woman", and "man" respectively, which makes sense. For the "Girl" emoji, however, the chart includes the keywords "girl," "maiden," "virgin," "virgo," and "zodiac". "Girl," I understand as a keyword. The last three, however, are nonsensical and, in the case of "virgin", sexist and quite offensive given the implication that the "girl" emoji is supposed to represent a child. I was shocked to see this sexualization of a child's image in the table and hope that this can be rectified. I see no reason why the "girl" emoji has so many nonsensical and offensive keywords listed and would appreciate your review of this issue.
Name: Christoph Päper
Date/Time: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:41:48 +0200
Opt Subject: [UTR#51-8] 1.4.3 Emoji Variation Sequences: Female/Venus and Male/Mars Signs
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/tr51-8.html#def_emoji_variation_sequence
> 2640 FE0E; text style; # FEMALE SIGN
> 2640 FE0F; emoji
style; # FEMALE SIGN
> 2642 FE0E; text style; # MALE SIGN
> 2642 FE0F; emoji style; # MALE SIGN
Since U+240 and U+2642 double as symbols for the planets (and ancient gods)
Venus and Mars, respectively, users will rightfully expect VS-16 to have an
effect on the other planet symbols as well (probably including U+2647 Pluto).
Both symbols are also sometimes used to represent Friday and Tuesday,
respectively, so some users may expect the symbols for the other 5 days of the
week also react on U+FE0E/F.
1. Monday ☽ U+263D Moon or ☾ U+263E
2. Tuesday ♂ U+2642 Mars
3.
Wednesday ☿ U+263F Mercury
4. Thursday ♃ U+2643 Jupiter
5. Friday ♀
U+2640 Venus
6. Saturday ♄ U+2644 Saturn
7. Sunday ☉ U+2609 Sun or ☼
U+263C
U+2640/2 are also part of common sets of gender, sex and sexuality symbols
which, again, some users will expect to have emoji forms now and – be prepared
for the 🌈💩🌪 – also work in ZWJ or Open Type ligature sequences. (I’m not sure
how lesbian or gay versions of emojis, as proposed before in L2/15-013 for
instance, could become anything other than stereotypical through offensive.) The
real-world use may be a bit different from what the annotations in the standard
say, e.g. distinction of transgender and intersex or sexuality and gender
identity:
> * ⚢ U+26A2 Doubled Female Sign
> = lesbianism
> * ⚣ U+26A3 Doubled Male Sign
> • a glyph variant has the two
circles on the same line
> = male homosexuality
> * ⚤
U+26A4 Interlocked Female and Male Sign
> • a glyph variant has the
two circles on the same line
> = bisexuality
> * ⚥
U+26A5 Male and Female Sign
> = transgendered sexuality
> = hermaphrodite (in entomology)
> * ⚦ U+26A6 Male with Stroke
Sign
> = transgendered sexuality
> * ⚧ U+26A7 Male
with Stroke and Male and Female Sign
> = transgendered sexuality
> * ⚲ U+26B2 Neuter
Lastly, the 2 signs are also recognized by Unicode to be alchemical symbols
of copper and iron, respectively, but since that set is much larger and even
more esoteric I expect not much demand for emoji versions of all of them.
In conclusion, I see no good way other than to add a lot of additional
codepoints from the Miscellaneous Symbols block to StandardizedVariants.txt.
Cheers
Christoph
Date/Time: Thu Aug 25 09:48:49 CDT 2016
Name: Jeremy Burge
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: Men and Women With Bunny Ears
Two new Emoji ZWJ Sequences which are included as part of Proposed Update Unicode® Technical Report #51 v 4.0 are listed as: 1F46F 200D 2640 FE0F Women partying 1F46F 200D 2642 FE0F Men partying While this is how these emojis are used sometimes, I propose using a more literal naming: 1F46F 200D 2640 FE0F Women with bunny ears 1F46F 200D 2642 FE0F Men with bunny ears This avoids implication of what the character is used for, and better correlates to how most major vendors display the female version of this emoji. An annotation could be added for "women/men partying" if deemed relevant.
Date/Time: Fri Aug 26 09:57:24 CDT 2016
Name: Jeremy Burge
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI 330 (UTR #51) Man With Turban Name Duplication
One new Emoji ZWJ Sequence included as part of Proposed Update Unicode® Technical Report #51 v 4.0 is: 1F473 200D 2642 FE0F Man with turban This name is potentially confusing as it is identical to the name of its base character: 1F473 Man with turban While there is no requirement that Emoji ZWJ Sequences have unique names that don’t clash with existing character names, I would recommend against the practice where it can be avoided. Suggested Alternatives: 1F473 200D 2642 FE0F Man wearing turban 1F473 200D 2640 FE0F Woman wearing turban These are more descriptive, closer to the writing style of other Emoji ZWJ Sequence names, and have the benefit of non-clashing names for the base character and ZWJ Sequence for the Man. This is a particular issue on Emojipedia where each emoji or ZWJ Sequences uses the name as the unique reference. Until now no Emoji ZWJ Sequence has had an identical name to a single emoji. There are no other clashes of identically named codepoint / ZWJ sequence in this 4.0 update. ———— Lastly, a note on two potential future clashes. If the following characters end up with gender-specific sequences, care should be taken to also use unique names. Man In Business Suit Levitating (base) Man Wearing Business Suit Levitating (male) Woman Wearing Business Suit Levitating (female) Man With Gua Pi Mao (base) Man Wearing Gua Pi Mao (male) Woman Wearing Gua Pi Mao (female) These are the only two likely examples we can see that would require care when naming in order to avoid a clash. All other characters don’t specify “man” or “woman” in the base character, and thus would logically get unique names without special consideration.
Date/Time: Fri Aug 26 05:49:50 CDT 2016
Name: Christoph Päper
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: UTR 51-8 Emoji Variation Sequences
<http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/tr51-8.html#Emoji_Implementation_Notes> > > … including the user of … Should be just “use”. > > * emoji zwj sequence > > - may have an emoji variation selector. > > - should be displayed with an emoji presentation by default, even when an emoji zwj element is a singleton with Emoji_Presentation=No. “zwj” should be “ZWJ” in all instances, also found elsewhere. If I don’t misread, this seems to be saying nothing about a (hypothetical) emoji ZWJ sequence consisting of 2 or more elements with `Emoji_Presentation=No` without any VS-16. What’s the actual intention? 1. If there’s any VS-16 or any character with `Emoji_Presentation=Yes` in a ZWJ sequence, the whole sequence SHOULD be treated as emoji(s). 2. A ZWJ sequence SHOULD be treated as emoji(s) if it contains only characters that either have `Emoji_Presentation=Yes` or whose glyph *can* be affected by VS-16. Only #2 would cover a ZWJ sequence of `Emoji_Presentation=No` characters without any VS-16 stuck on them.
Date/Time: Sun Aug 28 13:11:14 CDT 2016
Name: Alex Dunn
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: Emoji 4.0 gender options
It's great to see gender markers allowing all human emoji to be represented as one of two genders, but it's disappointing that there are exceptions, especially for the pregant person 🤰. Transgender men can and do get pregnant, and it'd be nice to see that reality represented.
Date/Time: Wed Sep 21 16:50:13 CDT 2016
Name: T L
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: Proposed Update UTR #51, Unicode Emoji (Version 4.0)
This is a technical standard. Please don't let politics trump reality and science. Only females get pregnant—that is biological fact. Simply because some undergo extensive surgical body modification does not make her a "pregnant man". Yes, there are some genuine cases of intersex (as opposed to trans) people. The number of intersex is extremely small. Limiting to binary gender choices is not an attempt to disenfranchise them from emoji usage, it's simply the fact that you can't create a variation for every possible situation. What about people who, through nature or accident, have only one eye? Do they feel disenfranchised by the fact that emoji people have two? What about people who have no arms, or no legs? Do they feel unrepresented because emoji people have arms and legs? Lots of people where glasses, maybe they feel left out by emoji representations, too. And don't forget those with heterochromia. Where does it end? More options is not necessarily better. So I recommend against this and other similarly marginal "identity" proposals. A technical standard is not the place to stroke one's identity-ego in order to promote political agendas or assuage inferiority complexes. This whole issue is nothing but posturing for political gain. The LGBTXYZ community has the loudest lobby, and that's the only reason we are hearing about it here as opposed to the hypothetical situations I mention above. A couple years ago, I remember reading that the standard for getting something into Unicode was multiple verified instances of actual use in print. Now, it seems that if a few people's feelings will get hurt by not adding it, that's good enough. (Waaah, cry a little louder, I guess.) I think the whole situation is ridiculous, and threatens to make Unicode a joke.
Date/Time: Wed Sep 28 17:36:46 CDT 2016
Name: Benjamin Brown
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: Proposed Update UTR #51, Unicode Emoji (Version 4.0)
I completely agree with "T L" here. It would be hasty and unwise to let a public, technical standard be guided by a politically charged vocal minority. The PC sensitivity options are already starting to feel cluttered.
Date/Time: Tue Oct 11 13:09:02 CDT 2016
Name: Patrick O'Toole
Report Type: Other Question, Problem, or Feedback
Opt Subject: The Shrimp Emoji
The shrimp emoji have breading on them. The shrimp emoji are also grouped far away from the other animal emoji. Currently, the shrimp is in the "Food & Drink" section. Wouldn't you care to see a bread-less shrimp emoji appear in the "Animals & Nature" section? May you please redesign the shrimp emoji? Thank you. Sincerely, Patrick O'Toole
Date/Time: Wed Oct 19 16:29:45 CDT 2016
Name: Camila Miyamura
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: Reminder ribbon - Update proposal UTR #51 (PRI #330)
I’d like to ask the addition of the color green as an option for the yellow “Reminder Ribbon” emoji. In many countries, Organ Donation depends only on awareness to happen. People need to express their wish to be a donor in life and tell their families. As simple as that. But it’s not a usual subject to be brought up among loved ones. A “Green Ribbon” emoji, as the international symbol for this cause, could be a powerful and facilitating tool throughout social media, inserting the matter in our everyday discussions. It could be a low cost solution for Organ Donation NGOs worldwide to reach people and raise awareness even through mobile marketing. In the US alone there are about 120.000 on the waiting list for an organ transplant. In my country the number is over 40.000. I believe that, if we consider the number of people on waiting lists and their families from all over the world, the Green Ribbon emoji is likely to have a high expected usage level. And it seems to be an easy fix. The “heart” emoji has color options and so do the ones with skin color options. Why not do the same with the ribbon? I truly believe this emoji could make a difference in hundreds of thousands of lives. Thank you. Sincerely, Camila
Date/Time: Fri Oct 21 17:37:38 CDT 2016
Name: Doug Ewell
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: Flags in Proposed Update UTR #51
Neither of the mechanisms for representing subdivision flags described in L2/16-226 or L2/16-234 is reflected in this document. Is UTC planning to standardize one of these mechanisms, something different, or none?
Date/Time: Mon Oct 24 10:50:19 CDT 2016
Name: William Overington
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI330 Can emoji be abstract designs?
Could you possibly clarify something please? In section 1 Introduction, there is the following text. >> Emoji are pictographs (pictorial symbols) that are typically presented in a colorful cartoon form and used inline in text. They represent things such as faces, weather, vehicles and buildings, food and drink, animals and plants, or icons that represent emotions, feelings, or activities. Can emoji be abstract designs? Or must emoji depict one or more physical objects? William Overington Monday 24 October 2016
Date/Time: Mon Oct 31 11:40:43 CDT 2016
Name: Peter Edberg
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: Feedback on emoji-data.txt 4.0 Emoji_Modifier_Base
Apple opposes the inclusion in Emoji_Modifier_Base of emoji that show multiple people (or parts thereof). We do not think a mechanism should be supported that only permits depiction of multi-person groups (or elements) in which each person has the same skin tone. The following should be removed from Emoji_Modifier_Base in the draft 4.0 version of emoji-data.txt: U+1F46A FAMILY U+1F46B MAN AND WOMAN HOLDING HANDS U+1F46C TWO MEN HOLDING HANDS U+1F46D TWO WOMEN HOLDING HANDS U+1F46F WOMAN WITH BUNNY EARS (commonly depicted with two people) U+1F93C WRESTLERS U+1F91D HANDSHAKE Note, all but HANDSHAKE were added to draft 4.0 emoji-data.txt as a consequence of L2/16-228.
Date/Time: Mon Oct 31 15:50:47 CDT 2016
Name: Mark Davis
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI#330 Proposed Update UTR #51, Unicode Emoji
We got an internal request to provide a property for regional_indicator, which could also then be used in http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#def_emoji_flag_sequence It could take the form of a binary property Emoji_Regional_Indicator (ERI), with the contents being U+1F1E6 REGIONAL INDICATOR SYMBOL LETTER A ... U+1F1FF REGIONAL INDICATOR SYMBOL LETTER Z