Thanks, Karl.
Mark
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Karl Williamson
wrote:
> On 07/08/2018 03:21 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised that the tests for 11.0 passed for a 10.0 implementation,
>> because the following should have triggered a difference for WB. Can you
>> check on this
Hello all,
About two and a half years ago, I suggested adding a FAQ about the
applicability of higher-level protocols for bidirectional plaintext, as
specified by http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/ -- my suggestion was
to clarify that higher-level protocols can only be applied upon
agreement
On 07/08/2018 03:21 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote:
I'm surprised that the tests for 11.0 passed for a 10.0 implementation,
because the following should have triggered a difference for WB. Can you
check on this particular case?
÷ 0020 × 0020 ÷#÷ [0.2] SPACE (WSegSpace) × [3.4] SPACE (WSegSpace) ÷
Memoji are not merely animated emoji; they are personalized avatars.
As for animated emoji, I expect that the UTC would consider them out-of-scope
for plain text. Note that web pages can already contain animated or moving
elements which cannot be represented in plain text.
> On Jul 9, 2018,
I have seen the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjqERCCD4iM
How will memoji be communicated from one device to another?
What happens if a message containing a memoji gets into a web page, such as in
the archives of this mailing list?
So, I am wondering whether memoji will
5 matches
Mail list logo