Why so much emoji nonsense?

Richard Wordingham via Unicode unicode at unicode.org
Sun Feb 18 14:06:42 CST 2018

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 22:31:12 -0800
James Kass via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:

> It's true that added features can make for a better presentation.
> Removing the special features shouldn't alter the message.

I think I've encountered the use of italics in novels for sotto voce or

> The Unicode Standard draws the line between minimal legibility and
> special features.  Emoji are in The Standard and have, therefore, been
> determined to be required for minimal legibility.

That is a fuzzy boundary, as is evidenced by the optional effects of ZWJ
and ZWNJ in most scripts and variation sequences (all scripts).
Unicode also avoids text that is 'wrong' but still comprehensible.


More information about the Unicode mailing list