Wireless Connection Symbol

[Kent Karlsson]

> 29 maj 2020 kl. 10:34 skrev Marius Spix via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>:
> 
> What about using the icon URI scheme to represent arbitrary emoji?
>  
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lafayette-icon-uri-scheme-00.html
>  
> This would allow stuff like <img src="icon:animals:dinosaurs:archaeopteryx" alt="Archaeopteryx”/>

Thanks for the reference. A quick look gives that it seems to be a fair idea. But that proposal was for file type icons only (mostly based on file suffix). So ”icon:animals:dinosaurs:archaeopteryx” is not covered by that proposal (though ”icon:.pdf” is). It also has a number of quirks. And the proposal was ”dead in the water” according to the (presumed) author. But let’s assume a similar ”emoji icon” uri type. One would then need to have some reasonable, and agreed upon, ”universal”, way of referring to ”emoji icons”, to tell which one is referenced.

The displayed size (not the pixel sizes, of which there are at least two, the origin and the final display, the latter depends on various resize operations, including zoom) of the ”emoji icon” must be overridable by a style="width:1em;height:1em;" (or similar) style (perhaps that too abbreviated; even implicitly referring to a user preference for emoji size). Emoji are (sort of) text, so their glyphs should follow the size of the text. Nit: 1em by 1em may be a bit small, esp. for running text. 1.5em by 1.5em or even bigger can make it much easier to see what is in the image. (Some (chat) applications already display emoji larger when alone in a line…)

Note that though I used HTML in the examples, embedding images (wether it is ”whatever image”, ”icons” or even ”generalized emoji”) is not limited to HTML of course.

/Kent Karlsson


> Regards,
>  
> Marius
>  
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Mai 2020 um 00:19 Uhr
> Von: "Kent Karlsson via Unicode" <unicode at unicode.org>
> An: "Markus Scherer" <markus.icu at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Unicode" <unicode at unicode.org>
> Betreff: Re: Wireless Connection Symbol
>  
>  
> 28 maj 2020 kl. 04:53 skrev Markus Scherer via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org <mailto:unicode at unicode.org>>:
>  
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:20 PM Kent Karlsson via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org <mailto:unicode at unicode.org>> wrote:
> 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…
>  
> Not entirely forgotten...
>  
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Longer_Term <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Longer_Term>
>  
> markus
>  
> Ok. Thanks for pointing that out. Glad it is not entirely forgotten.
>  
> One little nit:
> ”Other features required to make embedded graphics work well include the ability of images to scale with font size”
>  
> That sounds a little bit like one was requiring a small revolution in image rendering. But of course it is not (ok, HTML again):
>  
>      <img src="………" alt="……" style="width:1em;height:1em;"/>
>  
> (1em being the typical height and width of emoji glyphs.)
>  
> /Kent K
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/mailman/private/unicode/attachments/20200530/fc8c7997/attachment.htm>