It would also be useful if "Added to larger set" mentioned which proposal it was added to.
Last December I proposed emojification for U+1F58E LEFT WRITING HAND, and that's marked as merged but it's unclear which proposal it was merged with. (Also the document isn't on L2 yet, I'm not sure why) Thanks, -Manish On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:59 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode < [email protected]> wrote: > BTW, Slide 23 on http://unicode.org/emoji/slides.html ("Unicode > Resources: Specs, Data, and Code") shows one view of the relative sizes of > Unicode Consortium projects, divided up by cldr, icu, encoding (eg UTC > output), and also breaks out emoji. > > (It does need a bit of updating, since we have added emoji names to cldr.) > > Mark > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Mark Davis ☕️ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > imagine I discover that someone has already proposed the emoji that I >> am interested in >> >> In some cases we've have contacted people to see if they want to engage >> with other proposers. But to handle larger numbers we'd need a simple, >> light-weight way to let people know, while maintaining people's privacy >> when they want it. >> >> > Also, there seems to be no systematic reason... >> >> The ESC periodically prioritizes some of the larger sets and forwards a >> list to the UTC. >> >> >If an emoji proposal is well-formed and fits the general scope it >> should be forwarded to UTC. >> >> Emoji are a relatively small part of the work of the consortium, and >> should remain that way. So the UTC depends on the ESC to evaluate the >> quality and priority of proposals, based on the factors described. >> >> > Others are outdated, for instance because the larger set they have >> been added to has already been processed by UTC and they were declined. >> Some categories have only a single entry, others are clearly aliases of >> each other or subcategories. >> > I would like to help clean up the data, e.g. by commenting on the >> Google Spreadsheet that is embedded on the Unicode page. How can I do that >> as an individual member? >> >> That would be helpful, thanks. What I would suggest is taking a copy of >> the sheet, dumping into a spreadsheet (Google or Excel) and adding a column >> for your suggestions. You can then submit that. Note that the numbers are >> just to provide a count, there is no binding connection between them and >> the rest of the line. >> >> Mark >> >> Mark >> >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Christoph Päper via Unicode < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> [email protected]: >>> > >>> > The emoji subcommittee has also produced a new page which shows the >>> > Emoji Requests <http://www.unicode.org/emoji/emoji-requests.html> >>> > submitted so far. You can look at what other people have proposed or >>> > suggested. In many cases, people have made suggestions, but have not >>> > followed through with complete submission forms, or have submitted >>> > forms, but not followed through on requested modifications to the >>> forms. >>> >>> This good news! However, imagine I discover that someone has already >>> proposed the emoji that I am interested in, but their formal proposal needs >>> some work: From the public data I can not see when this proposal has been >>> received or whether it has been updated. Since I also cannot contact the >>> author, either I have to hope they are still working on the proposal or I >>> have to submit a separate proposal of my own, duplicating all the work. >>> >>> Also, there seems to be no systematic reason for which proposals get >>> shelved as "Added to larger set" while related ones (e.g. random animals) >>> progress to the UTC. The ESC should not have this power of gatekeeping. If >>> an emoji proposal is well-formed and fits the general scope it should be >>> forwarded to UTC, hence be published in the L2 repository. Alternatively, >>> the ESC should collect *all* proposals that semantically belong to a larger >>> set (e.g. animals) in a composite document and forward this annually, for >>> instance. >>> >>> Some entries are also opaque or ambiguous, i.e. not helpful, e.g.: >>> >>> 705 Six Chinese Styles Added to larger set Mixed >>> 706 Six Chinese-style Emoji No proposal form Other >>> >>> Others are outdated, for instance because the larger set they have been >>> added to has already been processed by UTC and they were declined. Some >>> categories have only a single entry, others are clearly aliases of each >>> other or subcategories. I would like to help clean up the data, e.g. by >>> commenting on the Google Spreadsheet that is embedded on the Unicode page. >>> How can I do that as an individual member? >>> >> >> >
