2018-02-21 5:01 GMT+01:00 Anshuman Pandey via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org>:
> > The good news is that the thread title question is moot. > > Yes, now let’s please return to discussing emoji. > Or NOT !!! This is NOT at all the same topic
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character? Michael Everson via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character? Philippe Verdy via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character? Garth Wallace via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new charac... Michael Everson via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... Philippe Verdy via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... James Kass via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... Michael Everson via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... Philippe Verdy via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... James Kass via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... Anshuman Pandey via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... Philippe Verdy via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... James Kass via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... Philippe Verdy via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... Robert Wheelock via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... Robert Wheelock via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... Khaled Hosny via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... Philippe Verdy via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... Asmus Freytag via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... Philippe Verdy via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... John W Kennedy via Unicode
- Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new ch... David Starner via Unicode
