Wireless Connection Symbol

[Kent Karlsson]

Embedding images (whichever one you like and ’you' have access to…) in text can already be done.

In HTML markup it is called ”img” (e.g. ”<img src=’…./eohippus.png’/>”). And there is no real question about which images will will be ”supported”.

Granted, it is not plain text. But emoji are already pushing ”out of” plain text as we knew it. And… I recall an argument (years ago) saying essentially
”these will be the only emoji encoded, the recommendation for expansion is to use images instead”. That seems to have been forgotten…

/Kent Karlsson

PS
I agree with Asmus that the ”QID emoji” is a really bad idea.



> 27 maj 2020 kl. 11:21 skrev James Kass via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>:
> 
> 
> On 2020-05-27 5:25 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>> I’ve already said this on the previous PRI, but it bears repeating: QID
>> sequences are fundamentally unworkable because they destroy the concept of
>> character identity. I firmly believe the UTC is considerably underestimating
>> the implications of providing a mechanism that can encode exactly the same
>> information in several, mutually incompatible ways. ...
> 
> As opposed to the current mechanism in which users cannot encode their desired information at all?
> 
> Unicode already provides a method for encoding the same information incompatibly, the PUA.  The QID emoji proposal seeks to standardize the plain-text interchange of any desired unencoded image, which would avoid the PUA issues.
> 
> There's more than one way to encode LATIN CAPITAL LETTER E WITH ACUTE compatibly.  If there were more than one way to encode an image of an eohippus in Unicode, they could be considered compatible.
> 
> If the concern wrt compatibility is that "image of an eohippus" might some day become an atomic Unicode character, somehow conflicting with the QID Emoji encoding, then it's suggested that with an existing plain-text interchange mechanism nobody would need to propose "image of an eohippus" as an atomic character.
> 
> It's also suggested that concerns about character identity needn't apply to "image of an eohippus" and the like because they haven't any.  "Image of an eohippus" is exactly that, nothing more and nothing less.  Interpreting the image as a meaningful symbol is up to the organic intelligence reading the text.  Meanwhile, the intention of the author is discoverable by any artificial process, namely that the author intended to send an image of an eohippus.
> 
>