Re: Invisible characters must be specified to be visible in security-sensitive situations
> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 17:33:12 -0500 > From: Oren Watson via Unicode > > https://securelist.com/zero-day-vulnerability-in-telegram/83800/ > > You could disallow these characters in filenames, but when filename handling > is charset-agnostic due to the > extended-ascii principle this is impractical. I think a better solution is to > specify a visible form of these > characters to be used (e.g. through otf font variants) when security is of > importance. Emacs has a special function that searches a given region of a buffer of text or of a text string for characters whose Bidi_Class property has been overridden by RLO or LRO. Emacs application programs can use this function to detect and flag such regions of text, and prevent such malicious attacks.
Re: End of discussion, please — Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
Anshuman Pandey wrote: > I think it’s a good time to end this conversation. Whether ‘nonsense’ or not, > emoji are here and they’re in Unicode. This conversation has itself become > nonsense, d’y’all agree? No. Other than the part about emoji being here and in Unicode. > The amount of time that people have spent on this discussion could’ve been > directed towards work on any one of the unencoded scripts listed at: > > http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/sei/scripts-not-encoded.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_work_and_no_play_makes_Jack_a_dull_boy
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
2018-02-16 10:46, "James Kass" wrote Phake Nick wrote, > By the standard of "if one can't string word together that speak for > themselves can use otger media", then we can scrap Unicode and simply use > voice recording for all the purposes. →_→ Not for me, I can still type faster than I can talk. Besides, voice recordings are all about communicating by stringing words together. There are thousands of situations where one would want to express something in text form instead of voice form other than to be fast. Voice communication isn't just about communicating "string of words" together. Emotion and any other rhibgs are also transferred. That's also why carriers are supporting HQ Voice transmission over telephony system for better clarity in this aspect. >> These are rhetorical questions. > > Tonal emoticon for telephone or voice transmission? There are tones for > voice based transmission system > And yes, there are limits in these technology which make teleconferencing > still not all that popular and people still have to fly across the world > just to attend all different sort of meetings. At least, that's what they tell their accountants and tax people, right? Then why do those people who pay for their own trip still do so? > […] 2018-02-16 11:27, "James Kass via Unicode" wrote: If someone were to be smiling and shrugging while giving you the finger, would you be smiling too? Heck, I'd probably be laughing out loud while running for my life! So, poor example. OK. A smiling creep is still a creep. This is an example of extravocal communication. If the person was sayong thankyou with smiling face while giving you a middle finger, it would be totally different context from a regular thank you goven by other people. Suppose for a moment that you and I are pals in the same room having a face-to-face conversation. I advise you that, due to unforeseen events, I'm a bit financially strapped and could use a spot of cash to sort of tide me over until my ship comes into orbit. You smile and nod your head while saying "no". Which response applies? Words suffice. We go by what people actually say rather than whatever they might have meant. When we read text, we go by what's written. Then, what would be the feeling of the listener if he onky hear you say no but didn't know about your facial and body reaction? They might not be able to grasp the pevep of no you are giving out, and you would want to use some rather lengthy description to explain to the person why you want to reject him. Why do that when a simple non-verbal expression is enough? An inability to communicate any essential feelings and overtones using words is not a gross failure of either language or writing. It's more about the skill levels of the speaker, listener, author, and reader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonverbal_communication As for the thread title question, perhaps the exchanges within the thread offer insight. Emoji exist and are interchanged. Unicode enables them to be interchanged in a standard fashion. Even if they're just for fun, frivolous, silly, and ephemeral. Even if some people consider them beyond the scope of The Unicode Standard. The best time to argue against the addition of emoji to Unicode would be 2007 or 2008, but you'd be wasting your time travel. Trust me. I would like to add that, if Unicode didn't include emoji at the time, then I suspect many more systems will continue to use Shift-JIS instead. Individual mobile phone carriers will continue to use each of their own provate codepoints and app/platform developers either have to find a way to convert between code point between different emoji being used (remember implementation by each carriers don't strictly correspond to each other), or invent yet another private use font to correspond to each of all those emoji within their platform.
End of discussion, please — Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
> On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:58 PM, Pierpaolo Bernardi via Unicode > wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:26 AM, James Kass via Unicode > wrote: > >> The best time to argue against the addition of emoji to Unicode would be >> 2007 or 2008, but you'd be wasting your time travel. Trust me. > > But it's always a good time to argue against the addition of more > nonsense to what we already have got. I think it’s a good time to end this conversation. Whether ‘nonsense’ or not, emoji are here and they’re in Unicode. This conversation has itself become nonsense, d’y’all agree? The amount of time that people have spent on this discussion could’ve been directed towards work on any one of the unencoded scripts listed at: http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/sei/scripts-not-encoded.html As many have noted during this discussion, the emoji “ship has already sailed”. I’d’ve jumped aboard sooner, but this metaphor is now also quite tired. 😴 All my best, Anshu
+1 (was: Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?)
Philippe Verdy wrote: If people don't know how to read and cannot reuse the content and transmit it, they become just consumers and in fact less and less productors or creators of contents. Just look at opinions under videos, most of them are just "thumbs up", "like", "+1", barely counted only, unqualifiable (there's not even a thumb down). +1 is actually a convenient shorthand when all that needs to be said is "I agree" or "me too" (especially now that the latter has taken on a highly charged meaning in the U.S.). It is especially popular in the IETF. It is not intended for situations that require explanation or details. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:26 AM, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > The best time to argue against the addition of emoji to Unicode would be > 2007 or 2008, but you'd be wasting your time travel. Trust me. But it's always a good time to argue against the addition of more nonsense to what we already have got.
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
If someone were to be smiling and shrugging while giving you the finger, would you be smiling too? Heck, I'd probably be laughing out loud while running for my life! So, poor example. OK. A smiling creep is still a creep. Suppose for a moment that you and I are pals in the same room having a face-to-face conversation. I advise you that, due to unforeseen events, I'm a bit financially strapped and could use a spot of cash to sort of tide me over until my ship comes into orbit. You smile and nod your head while saying "no". Which response applies? Words suffice. We go by what people actually say rather than whatever they might have meant. When we read text, we go by what's written. An inability to communicate any essential feelings and overtones using words is not a gross failure of either language or writing. It's more about the skill levels of the speaker, listener, author, and reader. As for the thread title question, perhaps the exchanges within the thread offer insight. Emoji exist and are interchanged. Unicode enables them to be interchanged in a standard fashion. Even if they're just for fun, frivolous, silly, and ephemeral. Even if some people consider them beyond the scope of The Unicode Standard. The best time to argue against the addition of emoji to Unicode would be 2007 or 2008, but you'd be wasting your time travel. Trust me.
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
Phake Nick wrote, > By the standard of "if one can't string word together that speak for > themselves can use otger media", then we can scrap Unicode and simply use > voice recording for all the purposes. →_→ Not for me, I can still type faster than I can talk. Besides, voice recordings are all about communicating by stringing words together. >> These are rhetorical questions. > > Tonal emoticon for telephone or voice transmission? There are tones for > voice based transmission system > And yes, there are limits in these technology which make teleconferencing > still not all that popular and people still have to fly across the world > just to attend all different sort of meetings. At least, that's what they tell their accountants and tax people, right? > Emoji is part of the literacy. Remember that Japanese writing system use > ideographic characters plus kana, it won't be odd to add yet another set of > pictographic writing system in line to express what you don't want to spell > out. Yes, it's a done deal. For better or for worse.
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:19 PM, Phake Nick via Unicode wrote: > > > 2018-02-16 04:55, "James Kass via Unicode" wrote: > > Ken Whistler replied to Erik Pedersen, > >> Emoticons were invented, in large part, to fill another >> major hole in written communication -- the need to convey >> emotional state and affective attitudes towards the text. > > There is no such need. If one can't string words together which > 'speak for themselves', there are other media. I suspect that > emoticons were invented for much the same reason that "typewriter art" > was invented: because it's there, it's cute, it's clever, and it's > novel. > > By the standard of "if one can't string word together that speak for > themselves can use otger media", then we can scrap Unicode and simply use > voice recording for all the purposes. →_→ > > >> This is the kind of information that face-to-face >> communication has a huge and evolutionarily deep >> bandwidth for, but which written communication >> typically fails miserably at. > > Does Braille include emoji? Are there tonal emoticons available for > telephone or voice transmission? Does the telephone "fail miserably" > at oral communication because there's no video to transmit facial tics > and hand gestures? Did Pontius Pilate have a cousin named Otto? > These are rhetorical questions. > > Tonal emoticon for telephone or voice transmission? There are tones for > voice based transmission system > And yes, there are limits in these technology which make teleconferencing > still not all that popular and people still have to fly across the world > just to attend all different sort of meetings. > > > For me, the emoji are a symptom of our moving into a post-literate > age. We already have people in positions of power who pride > themselves on their marginal literacy and boast about the fact that > they don't read much. Sad! > > Emoji is part of the literacy. Remember that Japanese writing system use > ideographic characters plus kana, it won't be odd to add yet another set of > pictographic writing system in line to express what you don't want to spell > out.
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
2018-02-16 04:55, "James Kass via Unicode" wrote: Ken Whistler replied to Erik Pedersen, > Emoticons were invented, in large part, to fill another > major hole in written communication -- the need to convey > emotional state and affective attitudes towards the text. There is no such need. If one can't string words together which 'speak for themselves', there are other media. I suspect that emoticons were invented for much the same reason that "typewriter art" was invented: because it's there, it's cute, it's clever, and it's novel. By the standard of "if one can't string word together that speak for themselves can use otger media", then we can scrap Unicode and simply use voice recording for all the purposes. →_→ > This is the kind of information that face-to-face > communication has a huge and evolutionarily deep > bandwidth for, but which written communication > typically fails miserably at. Does Braille include emoji? Are there tonal emoticons available for telephone or voice transmission? Does the telephone "fail miserably" at oral communication because there's no video to transmit facial tics and hand gestures? Did Pontius Pilate have a cousin named Otto? These are rhetorical questions. Tonal emoticon for telephone or voice transmission? There are tones for voice based transmission system And yes, there are limits in these technology which make teleconferencing still not all that popular and people still have to fly across the world just to attend all different sort of meetings. For me, the emoji are a symptom of our moving into a post-literate age. We already have people in positions of power who pride themselves on their marginal literacy and boast about the fact that they don't read much. Sad! Emoji is part of the literacy. Remember that Japanese writing system use ideographic characters plus kana, it won't be odd to add yet another set of pictographic writing system in line to express what you don't want to spell out.
Origin of Alphasyllabaries (was: Why so much emoji nonsense?)
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 21:49:57 +0100 Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > The concept of vowels as distinctive letters came later, even the > letter A was initially a representation of a glottal stop consonnant, > sometimes mute, only written to indicate a word that did not start by > a consonnant in their first syllable, letter. This has survived today > in abjads and abugidas where vowels became optional diacritics, but > that evolved as plain diacritics in Indic abugidas. OK. > The situation is even more complex because clusters of consonnants > were also represented in early vowel-less alphabets to represent full > syllables (this has formed the base of todays syllabaries when only > some glyph variants of the base consonnant was introduced to > distinguish their vocalization; The only syllabary where what you say might be true is the Ethiopic syllabary, and I have grave doubts as to that case. I hope you are aware that most syllabaries do not derive from alphabets, abjads or abugidas. > Indic abugidas with their complex > clusters where vowel diacritic create contextual variant forms of the > base consonnant is also a remnant of this old age): I see no reasons to regard consonant-vowel ligatures as going back to an earlier system without dependent vowels. > the separation of > phonetic consonnants came only later. Old Brahmi stacked consonants are generally very clear compositions. Opaque ligatures are a later development. Writing consonants linearly is a later development; is this what you are referring to? Richard.
Re: Invisible characters must be specified to be visible in security-sensitive situations
The suggested filename has no real importance, it could be garbage, Displaying it exactly has no importance. What is important is to display the MIME type (which is transmitted separately of the filemane, and frequently as well without the filename, a browser trying to infer a suitable filename from the URL, but it should respect the MIME type). The acceptable MIME types (and especially here when they are executable like here a javascript), should be clearly identified, and then the file-extension removed from what is displayed when it matches the MIME type. With these, the user would not be confused by the presence of a Bidi override control So. "photo_high_re"++"gnp.js" becomes the text field (to embed in an isolate like ) " photo_high_re"++"gnp (text/javascript)" rendered as "photo_high_regnp" (text/javascript). The browser may also be smarter by describing it as an executable script. But here in an alert box, where it detects a potential harmful content, the suggested filename to display should be simply filtered from these Bidi controls, and the suggested file extension removed and replaced by the default extension for the MIME type outside the isolate). The user would then see; "photo_high_regnp.js" (text/javascript) where the suggested filename was altered (in such alert, the suggested file names should also be truncated to a maximum limit and an indication of the truncation before the replaced extension, such as: "photo_high[...].js" (text/javascript) As well the generic icon used is not enough descriptive and counter productive as the user may think the icon is a preview of a PNG image, that's why the MIOME type should be clearly exposed. 2018-02-15 23:33 GMT+01:00 Oren Watson via Unicode : > https://securelist.com/zero-day-vulnerability-in-telegram/83800/ > > You could disallow these characters in filenames, but when filename > handling is charset-agnostic due to the extended-ascii principle this is > impractical. I think a better solution is to specify a visible form of > these characters to be used (e.g. through otf font variants) when security > is of importance. >
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
Philippe Verdy wrote, >>> And it's in the mission of Unicode, IMHO, to promote litteracy >> >> Um, no. And not even literacy, either. ;-) > > Oh well the 1 to 2 T is a minor English typo (there's 2 T in French for the > similar word family, sorry). > > But I included "IMHO", which means that even if it's not official, it has > been the motivating reason why various members joined the project ... In this case the punctuation emoticon tacked onto Ken's message apparently did little to diminish the sting of his correcting both your spelling and your opinion. Unicode's stated mission is more along the lines of ensuring that computer text can be universally interchanged in a standard fashion. As a tool, Unicode can be used to promote either literacy or illiteracy. It can be used to exchange messages of joy and love, or hatred and despair. I completely agree that promoting literacy and preserving texts has been a motivating factor for many people supporting the project.
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
Oh well the 1 to 2 T is a minor English typo (there's 2 T in French for the similar word family, sorry). But I included "IMHO", which means that even if it's not official, it has been the motivating reason why various members joined the project and try to put an end to the destruction of written languages and loss of our written heritage which is still the essential way to communicate for the humanity (much more than oral languages that are all threatened of rapid death and being fogotten if it's not written). Written languages easily cross the borders, the generations, the cultures, with it you can extend your own language and culture, and get more ideas, more inventions, you better understand the world, and you have the mean to be more creative, and not follow only what the most visible leaders are saying. Everywhere, literacy is improving people life and offers more means of living. And it really helps preserving your own personal memory (you do that with photos/videos or audio which are almost impossible to organize without attaching text to it)! 2018-02-15 23:41 GMT+01:00 Ken Whistler : > > > On 2/15/2018 2:24 PM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > >> And it's in the mission of Unicode, IMHO, to promote litteracy >> > > Um, no. And not even literacy, either. ;-) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Organizations_promoting_literacy > > --Ken > > >
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense? - Proscription
I'd not've thought "I'd've" was proscribed. Who woulda guessed? On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote: > Depends on your perspective I guess ;) > > -Original Message- > From: Unicode On Behalf Of Richard Wordingham > via Unicode > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:31 PM > To: unicode@unicode.org > Subject: Re: Why so much emoji nonsense? - Proscription > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:38:19 + > Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote: > >> I realize "I'd've" isn't >> "right", > > Where did that proscription come from? Is it perhaps a perversion of the > proscription of "I'd of"? > > Richard. >
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
Richard Wordingham wrote, >> Klingon and Ewellic. [winks] > > But wasn't that using a supplementary standard, the ConScript Unicode > Registry? The code points registered with CSUR were used for the interchange. But, to clarify, CSUR is not an official supplement to The Unicode Standard. Of course, any exchange of PUA data requires an agreement between senders and recipients. CSUR offers character mappings which private individuals may agree to use for data exchange.
Re: Invisible characters must be specified to be visible in security-sensitive situations
A list poster reported this story today: https://securelist.com/zero-day-vulnerability-in-telegram/83800/ For a view from the co-father of the Internet, see this recent article: Desirable Properties of Internet Identifiers Vinton G. Cerf https://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/ic/2017/06/mic2017060063.html --- - Nelson H. F. BeebeTel: +1 801 581 5254 - - University of UtahFAX: +1 801 581 4148 - - Department of Mathematics, 110 LCBInternet e-mail: be...@math.utah.edu - - 155 S 1400 E RM 233 be...@acm.org be...@computer.org - - Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USAURL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ - ---
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
On 2/15/2018 2:24 PM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: And it's in the mission of Unicode, IMHO, to promote litteracy Um, no. And not even literacy, either. ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Organizations_promoting_literacy --Ken
RE: Why so much emoji nonsense? - Proscription
Depends on your perspective I guess ;) -Original Message- From: Unicode On Behalf Of Richard Wordingham via Unicode Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:31 PM To: unicode@unicode.org Subject: Re: Why so much emoji nonsense? - Proscription On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:38:19 + Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote: > I realize "I'd've" isn't > "right", Where did that proscription come from? Is it perhaps a perversion of the proscription of "I'd of"? Richard.
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:49:05 -0800 James Kass via Unicode wrote: > I've personally exchanged text data with others using the PUA for both > Klingon and Ewellic. [winks] But wasn't that using a supplementary standard, the ConScript Unicode Registry? Richard.
Invisible characters must be specified to be visible in security-sensitive situations
https://securelist.com/zero-day-vulnerability-in-telegram/83800/ You could disallow these characters in filenames, but when filename handling is charset-agnostic due to the extended-ascii principle this is impractical. I think a better solution is to specify a visible form of these characters to be used (e.g. through otf font variants) when security is of importance.
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense? - Proscription
On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:38:19 + Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote: > I realize "I'd've" isn't > "right", Where did that proscription come from? Is it perhaps a perversion of the proscription of "I'd of"? Richard.
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
2018-02-15 22:38 GMT+01:00 Shawn Steele via Unicode : > > I don't find emoji to necessarily be a "post-literate" thing. Just a > different way of communicating. I have also seen them used in a > "pre-literate" fashion. Helping people that were struggling to learn to > read get past the initial difficulties they were having on their way to > becoming more literate. > If you just look at how more and more people "communicate" today on the Internet, it's only by video, most of them of poor quality and actually no graphic value at all where a single photo of the speaker on his profile would be enough. So the web is overwhelmed now by poor videos just containing speech, with very low value. But the worse is that this fabulous collection is almost impossible to qualify, sort, organize, it is not reusable, almost not transmissible (except on the social network where they are posted and where they'll soon disappear because there's simply no way to build efficient archives that would be usable in some near future: just a haystack where even the precious gold needles are extremely difficult to find. If people don't know how to read and cannot reuse the content and transmit it, they become just consumers and in fact less and less productors or creators of contents. Just look at opinions under videos, most of them are just "thumbs up", "like", "+1", barely counted only, unqualifiable (there's not even a thumb down). Even these terms are avoided on the interface and you just see an icon for the counter: do you have something to learn when seeing these icons? I fear that those in the near futuyre that won't be able to read and will only be able to listen the medias produced by others, will not even be able to make any judgement, and then will be easily manipulated. And it's in the mission of Unicode, IMHO, to promote litteracy because it is necessary for preserving, transmitting, and expanding the cultures, as well as reconciliate peopel with sciences instead of just following the voice of new gurus only because they look "fun".
RE: Why so much emoji nonsense?
For voice we certainly get clues about the speaker's intent from their tone. That tone can change the meaning of the same written word quite a bit. There is no need for video to wildly change the meaning of two different readings of the exact same words. Writers have always taken liberties with the written word to convey ideas that aren't purely grammatically correct. This may be most obvious in poetry, but it happens even in other writings. Maybe their entire reason was so that future English teachers would ask us why some author chose some peculiar structure or whatever. I find it odd that I write things like "I'd've thought" (AFAIK I hadn't been exposed to I'd've and it just spontaneously occurred, but apparently others (mis)use it as well). I realize "I'd've" isn't "right", but it better conveys my current state of mind than spelling it out would've. Similarly, if I find myself smiling internally while I'm writing, it's going to get a :) Though I may use :), I agree that most of my use of emoji is more decorative, however including other emoji can also make the sentence feel more "fun". If I receive a 😀 as the only response to a comment I made, that conveys information that I would have a difficult time putting into words. I don't find emoji to necessarily be a "post-literate" thing. Just a different way of communicating. I have also seen them used in a "pre-literate" fashion. Helping people that were struggling to learn to read get past the initial difficulties they were having on their way to becoming more literate. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Unicode On Behalf Of James Kass via Unicode Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:53 PM To: Ken Whistler Cc: Erik Pedersen ; Unicode Public Subject: Re: Why so much emoji nonsense? Ken Whistler replied to Erik Pedersen, > Emoticons were invented, in large part, to fill another major hole in > written communication -- the need to convey emotional state and > affective attitudes towards the text. There is no such need. If one can't string words together which 'speak for themselves', there are other media. I suspect that emoticons were invented for much the same reason that "typewriter art" was invented: because it's there, it's cute, it's clever, and it's novel. > This is the kind of information that face-to-face communication has a > huge and evolutionarily deep bandwidth for, but which written > communication typically fails miserably at. Does Braille include emoji? Are there tonal emoticons available for telephone or voice transmission? Does the telephone "fail miserably" at oral communication because there's no video to transmit facial tics and hand gestures? Did Pontius Pilate have a cousin named Otto? These are rhetorical questions. For me, the emoji are a symptom of our moving into a post-literate age. We already have people in positions of power who pride themselves on their marginal literacy and boast about the fact that they don't read much. Sad!
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
Ken Whistler replied to Erik Pedersen, > Emoticons were invented, in large part, to fill another > major hole in written communication -- the need to convey > emotional state and affective attitudes towards the text. There is no such need. If one can't string words together which 'speak for themselves', there are other media. I suspect that emoticons were invented for much the same reason that "typewriter art" was invented: because it's there, it's cute, it's clever, and it's novel. > This is the kind of information that face-to-face > communication has a huge and evolutionarily deep > bandwidth for, but which written communication > typically fails miserably at. Does Braille include emoji? Are there tonal emoticons available for telephone or voice transmission? Does the telephone "fail miserably" at oral communication because there's no video to transmit facial tics and hand gestures? Did Pontius Pilate have a cousin named Otto? These are rhetorical questions. For me, the emoji are a symptom of our moving into a post-literate age. We already have people in positions of power who pride themselves on their marginal literacy and boast about the fact that they don't read much. Sad!
Re: Unicode of Death 2.0
That's probably not a bug of Unicode but of MacOS/iOS text renderers with some fonts using advanced composition feature. Similar bugs could as well the new advanced features added in Windows or Android to support multicolored emojis, variable fonts, contextual glyph transforms, style variants, or more font formats (not just OpenType); the bug may also be in the graphic renderer (incorrect clipping when drawing the glyph into the glyph cache, with buffer overflows possibly caused by incorrectly computed splines), and it could be in the display driver (or in the hardware accelerator having some limitations on the compelxity of multipolygons to fill and to antialias), causing some infinite recursion loop, or too deep recursion exhausting the stack limit; Finally the bug could be in the OpenType hinting engine moving some points outside the clipping area (the math theory may say that such plcement of a point outside the clipping area may be impossible, but various mathematical simplifcations and shortcuts are used to simplify or accelerate the rendering, at the price of some quirks. Even the SVG standard (in constant evolution) could be affected as well in its implementation. There are tons of possible bugs here. 2018-02-15 18:21 GMT+01:00 James Kass via Unicode : > This article: > https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/15/iphone-text-bomb-ios- > mac-crash-apple/?ncid=mobilenavtrend > > The single Unicode symbol referred to in the article results from a > string of Telugu characters. The article doesn't list or display the > characters, so Mac users can visit the above link. A link in one of > the comments leads to a page which does display the characters. >
Unicode of Death 2.0
This article: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/15/iphone-text-bomb-ios-mac-crash-apple/?ncid=mobilenavtrend The single Unicode symbol referred to in the article results from a string of Telugu characters. The article doesn't list or display the characters, so Mac users can visit the above link. A link in one of the comments leads to a page which does display the characters.
Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?
James Kass via Unicode : > Martin J. Dürst > >> The original Japanese cell phone carrier emoji where defined in the >> unassigned area of Shift_JIS, not Unicode. > > Thank you (and another list member) for reminding that it was > originally hacked SJIS rather than proper PUA Unicode. Japanese telcos were also not the first to use this space for pictographs and ideographs. Look at Sharp electronic typewriters from the early 1990s for instance (which can also be considered laptop computers), e.g. WD-A521 or WD-A551 or WD-A750. They already included much of what later became J-Phone / Vodafone / Softbank emojis.