I'd agree about reading and following
http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Selection_Factors.
As far as petitions go, we take them with a sizable grain of salt. See
http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Selection_Factors_Requested. 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 <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Andrew West <andrewcwest_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 August 2015 at 12:36, Otto Stolz <otto.stolz_at_uni-konstanz.de> 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
> http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/ especially section 1.2 Encoding
> Considerations and Annex C Selection Factors, then start a petition to
> the Unicode Consortium on www.change.org, 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