New Unicode Emoji draft, available for review
rick at unicode.org
Wed Nov 5 15:48:01 CST 2014
FYI, Posting this on behalf of Mark Davis... Something in his original
reply message is apparently toxic to our mail gateway that it can't get
May be the literal U+1F4A9, which I have (I'm sorry) redacted below.
> Could be either one [U+1F4A9]
> The exact contents of minimal and optional characters is something
> want to get feedback on. But I don't think [U+1F4A9] is in the running!
> BTW, I'm seeing about 250 new news articles on this, per hour (in
> Plus a scattering of others, s.a.
More information about the Unicode