[arp242]

Unicode still does lots of work on language support. The notion that emoji support impedes that is simply not true.

And people were already doing emojis with phpBB, MSN Messenger, etc. The alternative to Unicode emojis would not be "no emojis", but "every platform with their own proprietary incompatible implementation".

Han Unification has been discussed a million times already. Originally Unicode only had 2 bytes and 65k characters. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe not – I don't speak these languages and those who do often disagree on this as well. However, changing it now would probably introduce be more pain than it solves.

[weinzierl]

"Unicode still does lots of work on language support."

Yes, and that's a good thing.

"The notion that emoji support impedes that is simply not true."

If it does not, why are there so many unresolved issues and shortcomings lingering around for years.

It's not that the issues around Han Unification will go away by ignoring them. There are related issues in western languages, like the umlaut/trema distinction. Pushing these topics, which are core to Unicode's original mission, into OpenType is not a solution.

Why do we continue adding pictures of random every day objects, like disco balls, when not even characters common in ordinary books can be represented?

Don't you think reallocating resources from emoji work to more serious issues would make sense?

[arp242]

These are not "unresolved issues"; these are opinionated views. That's okay, but please, don't fool yourself in to thinking this is somehow objective fact because it's just not. Encoding all human scripts in one encoding was always going to involve some choices, and no matter which choices would have been made some people were going to disagree with it.

I have no idea which "characters common in ordinary books" are missing; the explicit goal of Unicode is to encode exactly that sort of thing.

[weinzierl]

Unicode's original mission was to encode all characters needed for written communication in the world.

Han Unification fails this mission and that is not a matter of opinion.

"I have no idea which "characters common in ordinary books" are missing; the explicit goal of Unicode is to encode exactly that sort of thing."

In

«Günther a souligné l’ambigüité de son discours.»

there is an umlaut and a dieresis.

They are different characters with different function. In traditional book printing they used to look differently and quality fonts do still have both. Unfortunately Unicode does not encode both of them.

[arp242]

To claim that these letters "cannot be represented" is just outright bizarre. You literally you did so yourself. Expecting Unicode to contain a codepoint for every single rendering variation is not realistic and the line must be drawn somewhere, with other rendering information provided in another way (e.g. lang=de, font-style, whatnot).

You can disagree how Unicode does this (or how other encodings do it, for that matter) but this is just an utterly disingenuous thing to say. I no longer believe you are engaging in good faith. You have either not understood Unicode or you're intentionally misrepresenting it. Good bye.

[weinzierl]

"To claim that these letters "cannot be represented" is just outright bizarre. You literally you did so yourself."

I did not. In every book printed before 1950 and every quality book printed now the different characters would actually look differently. This is not about rendering variations but about different characters (linguistically and functionally, e.g. wrt collation) that coincidentally look similar and Unicode confuses.

Here is a source from DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung) with more background:

https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2003/03215-n2593-umlaut-trema.pd...

If you think its just crazy Germans arguing a moot point Yannis Haralambous has a paragraph specifically about the umlaut/trema issue in his O'Reilly book "Fonts & Encodings".

[myfonj]

Haven't read the book yet, but isn't that more like a matter of the font/rendering engine? I have a murky notion that for Cyrillic, for example, there are some nuances in rendering certain glyphs in cursive between languages [1], but these nuances are usually resolved by cooperation of the font and client interpreting the language hints, so not in the "physical" text.

(Not telling I see this as a good thing or anything: it is way beyond my expertise; I definitely can see the motivation for introducing as many variants in the Unicode register as there are in the real world)

Isn't the umlaut vs trema/diaeresis in a similar situation?

[1] made me test it and cobble a demo. (Sadly, not speaking any of these languages, so cannot verify it is correct; just wanted to see the difference in practice):

    data:text/html;charset=utf-8;verbatim,<style>
    @import url("https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Noto+Sans:ital@0;1");
    body { font-family: 'Noto Sans'; }
    dl:hover i { font-style: normal; }
    </style>
    <dl>
    <dt>lang="ru"
    <dd lang="ru"><i>грипп, практика, график, типа</i>
    <dt>lang="sr"
    <dd lang="sr"><i>грипп, практика, график, типа</i>
    </dl>

Arguably, depending on wide (physical text ↔ specific font ↔ rendering agent) ecosystem feels quite fragile, but cannot tell if there is any better alternative for this particular case.

https://myfonj.github.io/sandbox.html#%3C!doctype%20html%3E%...

[charcircuit]

>Expecting Unicode to contain a codepoint for every single rendering variation

It's not just rendering variations. While they are etymlogically related they are made with different strokes and are incorrect to substitute for one another.

Technically Unicode has a variant selector that can be used for selecting between variations of the characters, but this does not have sufficient adoption. So that means pretty much everything has to annotate what language it is written in so it can be rendered correctly, else the system has to check the system settings to guess what language the user likely wants to see things rendered as.

[Insanity]

Going to be nitpicky, while also saying +1

MSN, Skype, etc used emoticons and not emoji, and there wasn’t a standard that I’m aware of.

[arp242]

I'm reasonably sure they had graphical "emojis" rather than just ASCII "emotions" like :-). They weren't called "emojis" at the time of course, but basically, it's the same thing.

[myfonj]

True. And interestingly, the term "emoticon" was used both for the basic "ASCII" and fancy graphical representation. And while some "ASCII" sequences were present on multiple platforms, the meaning quite unsurprisingly often diverged, just like you implied. See some:

        [MSN emoticons]  vs [Yahoo emoticons]
    :-* "Secret telling" vs "kiss"
    8-| "Nerd"           vs "rolling eyes"
    :|  "Disappointed"   vs "straight face"

[MSN emoticons] https://web.archive.org/web/20031206095746/http://messenger....

[Yahoo emoticons] https://web.archive.org/web/20080408053458/http://messenger....

N.B. some of them are animated. Animated fonts coming when?

[throw7]

unicode did not magically get rid of proprietary implementations... e.g. apple's "pistol".

[Gigachad]

That's not a proprietary implementation, it's a font. Unicode doesn't define how a character renders more than giving a suggestion. It's fully up to the font how it should display.

[arp242]

A single disagreement over something does not make things "proprietary". And it's been what, ten years? Honestly, get over it.

[eadmund]

Apple displays the pistol emoji as a squirt gun. That’s wrong. It has always been wrong. It will always be wrong, because a squirt gun is not a pistol. Time doesn’t erase an error. ‘Get over it’ is the wrong response: ‘Apple, stop being wrong’ is the correct one.

[arp242]

The name in Unicode for U+1F52B is "water pistol". For better or worse, everyone uses a water pistol now and has for years.

[weinzierl]

Not in my book, which is The Unicode Standard, Version 16.0.

    1F52B PISTOL = handgun, revolver

https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F300.pdf