QID Emoij (was: Re: Wireless Connection Symbol)

Sławomir Osipiuk sosipiuk at gmail.com
Wed May 27 11:18:01 CDT 2020

Users can encode their desired information using the PUA. That is precisely what it is for.

What QID seems to be proposing is a way to assign an interchange-suitable, (semi-)stable ID to a meaningful symbol. I don't see how that is anything other than what Unicode itself is meant to provide: A standardized  ID number for a character. The QID process seems to be merely a way to "assign emojis faster" because the current process isn't responsive enough for vendors' liking. It's another layer of Unicode sitting atop Unicode, motivated by a desire for less oversight from the Unicode Consortium.

I agree with the "nay" comments. Besides all the practical downsides, I think QID emojis invite a free-for-all that goes against the very spirit of Unicode as being a standardized database of character/emoji IDs.

The issue to be resolved here lies in the process for adding emojis. The current process is too onerous and slow. I can imagine a new process, that isn't bound to a regular schedule, and that allows eminently useful and needed emojis to be fast-tracked to approval in days, not months. Perhaps an entire plane could be reserved for such emojis - 65K should be enough for anyone, right? ;) Perhaps there could be a provisional or probationary approval granted to certain emojis, or at least a "reservation" system for code points. A vendor could reserve spaces with emojis they plan to add (with reasonable limits, of course). There could be a public voting system to add or approve emojis in near-real-time based on thresholds for approval. It's 2020; we have the technology. Provisional emojis or code points reservations that don't see use/support after some amount of time are rejected and code points are allowed to be reused. Those that see use or public support are given final approval and become bound by stability requirements. The Unicode Consortium is still involved, but less so, relying more on automated metrics than meetings, though they would still have veto power if there is some valid subjective factor to consider.

The details are something to be worked out. The main point is that there is a desire for a quicker, more responsive way to add emojis. That can be done without essentially reconstructing Unicode on top of itself.

Sławomir Osipiuk

More information about the Unicode mailing list