On August 9, 2017 4:28:49 PM GMT+09:00, Thomas Pfeiffer <thomas.pfeif...@kde.org> wrote: >On Mittwoch, 9. August 2017 02:14:44 CEST Jonathan Frederickson wrote: >> On 08/08/2017 06:19 PM, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: >> > - Support for a decent set of Emoji (not just the ones you can >create >> > using >> > ASCII chars). >> > Using Unicode to display them is probably okay, as long as users >can >> > choose >> > them from a menu in the client instead of having to paste them from >> > KCharSelect. >> > This, too, might sound like nice-to-have for many, but not having >them >> > would cut us off from the younger generation. Yes, they use them >even in >> > a "professional context". Believe me, I'm seeing it in action every >day >> > at work. >> I'm not sure custom emoji should be a requirement. That pretty >heavily >> limits your options, and even some of the major chat platforms >> (WhatsApp, iMessage, Hangouts) don't support this. > >That's why I wrote that Unicode is okay. Unicode now has quite a range >of >emoji and that set is growing steadily, so that's fine. Not optimal >because >they're black and white, but fine. >Just not only ASCII ones. > >Custom emoji are nice, but definitely not a must.
This is technically completely wrong - nothing prevents Unicode emoji from being colored, there are multiple color font technologies in use and Linux toolkits support some of them. A "Unicode emoji" is just a number encoded to a bit sequence. How it's displayed once found is up to the client. Unicode is just how you agree on exchanging and storing the character. Cheers, Eike -- Plasma, apps developer KDE e.V. vice president, treasurer Seoul, South Korea
