Apologies for the duplicate threads; I accidentally sent the email as rich text. Here’s a version without the duplicate links.
> On Mar 6, 2018, at 12:52 PM, J. S. Choi via Unicode <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The W3C CSS Working Group is continuing to work on standardizing the default > emoji presentation in perhaps the most ubiquitous application of Unicode > today, the world wide web. Some recent logs: > > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/7a5e0d702b00f8d3df5f2b43c9c65d1c2a2284f6 > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2304#issuecomment-369323232 > Current draft at https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#font-variant-emoji-desc > > Currently, the CSS draft specifies three values for emoji that a web author > may use to style their content: auto, text, and emoji. The auto value (which > is the default) leaves emoji presentation to the discretion of the web > browser and system platform itself, rather than conforming strictly to UTR > 51. https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1223 proposes that a strict > > If the authors or experts of UTR 51 believe that the Emoji_presentation > property is useful, then they may want to chime in at Issue > w3c/csswg-drafts#1223 with their expertise. My opinion is that standardizing > the default presentation is important enough to strictly conform to UTR 51. > Breakage has already occurred in the past, such as when WebKit in 2015 > unexpectedly switched the default presentation of U+21A9 LEFTWARDS ARROW WITH > HOOK “↩” from text to emoji, which unexpectedly broke existing websites such > as Daring Fireball (see > https://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/04/22/unicode-emoji and also > http://mts.io/2015/04/21/unicode-symbol-render-text-emoji/). > > See also https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2018-m01/0016.html and > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2138. To give an update on this > issue: The CSS WG recently resolved to make all web browsers completely > ignore BCP47’s -u- extension. If the authors/experts of the BCP47 extension > believe that the extension is at all useful, they still may wish to chime in > at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2138, but > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-fonts-4/#font-variant-emoji-desc has now been > updated to specify the ignoring of the BCP47 extension. > > Cheers, > J. S. Choi
