QID Emoji (from Re: Wireless Connection Symbol)

[abrahamgross at disroot.org]

What if instead of using a QID which on its own is just meaningless numbers, we do tag_start, then write out a word in the tag letters, then close it off with a tag_end. this way, if your device doesn't have the font, it can fall back by rendering the tags through regular character (with an indicator that an emoji is supposed to be there)

Example:
Suppose I type: “I love ⎆triceratops✦” (with ⎆ being tag_start; ✦ being tag_end; and everything between being tag ascii characters E0020-E007E),
My phone, that has the correct font installed, will render it as
 [cid:eu.faircode.email.987]

While for someone else without the font, it would render as something like

 [cid:eu.faircode.email.988]

This way the intent of the original message will carry across to the reader correctly whether they have the correct font or not. This makes it better than PUA due to the information not being completely lost, and as a another bonus, screen readers would be able to read this just fine (i.e. “I love 🔔triceratops🔔”, where 🔔 represents a tone.)

I understand that this uses more space than QID sequences, but I think the payoff of not having to worry about �/〓/□/☒ everywhere is worth it.

2020/05/28 午後2:32:28 wjgo_10009--- via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>:
> QID Emoji (from Re: Wireless Connection Symbol)
> 
> Kent Karlsson wrote as follows.
> 
>> I agree with Asmus that the ”QID emoji” is a really bad idea.
>> 
> I opine that when considering a new idea it is important to be prepared to suspend disbelief and consider if any parts of the idea are good, rather than just the total idea.
> 
> I find the QID Emoji proposal has some very good aspects but is somewhat unstable as a whole.
> 
> So, if those in favour of the proposal and those against are each willing to be like the strongest trees and sway in the breeze then the good parts of the proposal could become available in a stable manner.
> 
> For example, maybe registration in a Unicode Inc. database, with the option of a cross-reference link to QID, would mean that only those QID where someone wants an emoji for that QID would be in the Unicode Inc. database, and a gentle moderation policy could be used to stop ambiguity and duplication. So maybe shorter codes.
> 
> What if U+FFF0 is defined, mutatis mutandis, as effectively what would be a ligature of the ID emoji and tag Q in the original proposal, U+FFF8 is defined as the corresponding CANCEL and circled digits are used. All part of the basic plane, so fewer bytes for each such character and a graceful indicative fallback facility built in.
> 
> I realize that the original proposal can be implemented with existing technology, and that the changes I suggest would require changes to The Unicode Standard and software packages, but that could be done in time if there is the will to do so, yet whatever solution is implemented is there for a very long time.
> 
> Would those two changes both go a long way towards making a solution that is acceptable to everybody?
> 
> I may not have solved every objection and what I suggest does change the original. Yet this is research for the future. So, if people agree, please say so, if not then please say what I have missed or got wrong and what needs fixing and then, as a group effort, maybe we can iterate in a constructive way and achieve a good solution acceptable to everybody.
> 
> William Overington
> 
> Thursday 28 May 2020
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image:432838
Type: image/png
Size: 48480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/mailman/private/unicode/attachments/20200529/9d4c8933/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Render.png
Type: image/png
Size: 24595 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/mailman/private/unicode/attachments/20200529/9d4c8933/attachment-0001.png>