On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote: >> Leo Broukhis <leob at mailcom dot com> wrote: >> >>> Fonts vary and can be copyrighted, no doubt, but Unicode is not about >>> fonts. >> >> I was going to bust out the Apple logo as an analogy to the Olympic >> symbols, but apparently the Apple logo is trademarked and not merely >> copyrighted, so never mind. >> >> In any case, if this is just a character/glyph thing, then there >> shouldn't be a problem using either the existing emoji or the ones >> proposed in L2/15-196R for Olympic sports, since the glyphs can simply >> be styled as needed. > > Would this be considered within the normal range of glyphic variation? > Would an icon of two pugilists fighting be an acceptable rendering of > a BOXING GLOVE emoji? > > BTW, speaking as a martial artist myself, I have to say an empty dogi > is an odd representation for martial arts, even specifically Japanese > ones. The proposal says that it could be used for judo, karate, and > tae kwon do; it at least matches the first two (they are distinct, but > not in a way that would , and practice uniforms for TKD are similar, > but competitive TKD under WTF rules (including Olympic competition) > uses several pieces of protective equipment (helmet, gloves, chest > guard) with colored padding over the dobok.
Also, has anyone else noticed that the proposed WRESTLING emoji doesn't depict competitive wrestling? It's a pair of shirtless men in baggy pants standing straight up, with one apparently grabbing the other by the ponytail and hitting his face.
