QID Emoij

David Starner prosfilaes at gmail.com
Fri May 29 05:32:31 CDT 2020

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:15 AM James Kass <jameskasskrv at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2020-05-29 7:40 AM, David Starner wrote:
> > I don't see it. Profit driven corporate interests may or may not
> > support QID Emoji; if they don't, it's practically dead in the water.
> This discounts the probability that third-partiers would step up to the
> plate.

How? If you can't send it in email to arbitrary systems or in text
messages in arbitrary systems and it show up right, who is going to
use it?

> > If they do, Google is going to make a list of corporately supported
> > emoji, just like what started this, and that's going to be the list of
> > supported QID emoji. Outside that corporate line, there's going to be
> > about zero chance anyone tries to use QID emoji, because at most one
> > in a million QID emoji are going to be supported, so even if you do
> > want to use an emoji from the Palmer's Chipmunk, what's the right QID
> > for that? It seems to have three, one for each scientific name, plus
> > maybe using the genus, Tamias, will be better supported, or Marmotini,
> > or Sciuridae, but if you're getting that vague, ...
> Aren't there far more than three ways to express the concept "Hello"
> using valid Unicode strings?  If *that* had been deemed an
> insurmountable obstacle, we'd still be limited to ASCII-English.

That's not exactly comparable. I'm looking for a way to pass an image
of a Palmer's Chipmunk, and am willing to accept fallbacks. With QID
emoji, there's no way for me to know what will work, nor any way for a
implementer to know which one I will use. On the contrary, there is
one correct way to express "Hello" in Unicode, as a series of five
codepoints encoded in the Basic Latin block. Redundant encoding, where
it's ambiguous which character to use, is frowned upon in Unicode, and
most codepoints in Unicode are generally supported unless they're for
a poorly supported script, in which case the problems can be

> >> Naysayers will point out obstacles in any such approach.  In the English
> >> language, anyone who considers any and all obstacles insurmountable is
> >> referred to as a quitter.
> > People who use the term quitter in such a sense often get a ride from
> > a police car or ambulance later that night. It's a bizarre word to use
> > when you've decided Unicode should be a quitter and stop even trying
> > to manage emoji.
> >
> I've decided that Unicode has no business limiting an evolving set of
> symbols.

Why don't you do this yourself? You could have QID emoji codepoints in
the PUA, and everyone would flock to supporting them. Any obstacles
you point out in that just show that you're a quitter.

The standard is written in English . If you have trouble understanding
a particular section, read it again and again and again . . . Sit up
straight. Eat your vegetables. Do not mumble. -- _Pascal_, ISO 7185

More information about the Unicode mailing list