Phillips, Addison via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Wed May 1 09:59:51 CDT 2019
Why is this surprising?
Encoding a script is many many orders of magnitude more complex than
encoding emoji. This is especially true given that the scripts that remain
unencoded are largely used by small populations (or, in the case of historic
scripts, by *no* population at all). It is a complex, painstaking business.
In many ways emoji is actually a godsend for this effort, since it attracts
attention to Unicode programs such as Adopt a Character, which funds script
encoding grants, and ultimately result in Unicode being better able to serve
its deeper mission of making all the world's languages digitally accessible.
What's more, when implementations support emoji features, such as ZWJ
sequences, variation selectors, etc., they are also building necessary
mechanisms for supporting complex scripts (many of which are recently
encoded or on the roadmap).
Sr. Principal SDE – I18N (Amazon)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org] On Behalf Of
> > Shriramana Sharma via Unicode
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 3:24 AM
> > To: UnicoDe List <unicode at unicode.org>
> > Subject: Emoji boom?
> > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L-curdoc.htm
> > The number of emoji-related proposals seems to be increasing compared
> > to the number of script-related ones.
> > Have we reached a plateau re scripts encoding?
> > Somehow this seems sad to me considering the great role Unicode played
> > in bringing Indic scripts (from my POV as an Indian) to mainstream
> > digital devices.
> > --
> > Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा
More information about the Unicode