|
|
|
|
|
by Gigachad
1605 days ago
|
|
This argument was lost the moment Unicode was created. Japanese carriers had created their own standard for emoji encoding for sms. And they would not switch to Unicode unless the emoji were ported over. It’s a tricky situation. Maybe allowing an arbitrary bitmap char to represent any emoji would have been better but then we could have ended up in a situation where normal text or meaningful punctuation or perhaps even fonts would get encoded as bitmaps. For something like a face or hand gesture, a bitmap likely would have been better since it would at least look the same on all platforms. |
|
Because emoji became characters, text rendering and font formats had to be extended to support them. There are four different ways to encode emoji in OpenType 1.8:
* Apple uses embedded PNG
* Google uses embedded colour bitmaps
* Microsoft uses flat glyphs in different colours layered on top of one-another
* Adobe and Mozilla use embedded SVG.