On 5/18/2017 9:48 AM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
Asmus Freytag wrote:
Given that one co-chair of the Emoji Subcommittee is from Apple and
the other is from Google, you may wish to rethink your expectations
about all this.
I'd expect "zelpa" to feel validated by this info in their concern,
wouldn't you?
Well, it's public information: http://www.unicode.org/emoji/
The more important point is the one others have been making: Unicode
does not and cannot attempt to dictate to any vendor how to design
glyphs, either for normal characters like A and Ω and 丱 or for emoji.
Unicode does insist that the glyph design not misrepresent the meaning
of the character, which I believe was Michael Everson's objection to
vendors implementing U+1F3B1 BILLIARDS as a lone 8-ball. It's not clear
to me that the Google redesign discussed here goes that far; this seems
more like objection on aesthetic grounds.
While this is all true, it seems to miss the point behind the whole
complaint.
Attempts to counter "tongue-in-cheek" complaints with literal facts
aren't always effective. :)
A./
