Encoding ConScripts

James Kass jameskass at code2001.com
Wed Oct 13 17:12:59 CDT 2021

On 2021-10-13 10:39 AM, William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote:
> The following request for allowing abstract emoji to become in scope 
> has received no reply as far as I am aware.
> https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21068-pubrev.html#Emoji_Feedback
> If abstract emoji become in scope for consideration, then a proposal 
> document would be allowed to go forward for consideration.
> William 

Your request may not have gone to the right place.

We discussed this back in mid-August of 2018 on this list.

I think that a proposal, even if initially rejected as out-of-scope, 
would be more likely to be read by actual emoji users (and vendors) than 
feedback on an obscure web page.  If any kind of demand for such 
characters ensued, surely any abstract objections would be waived in 
this case.  But don't you think it more likely that if users and vendors 
wanted pronoun emoji, they would design language-independent 
pictographs?  I do, and that's why I pointed out that you were devising 
a ConScript rather than inventing "emoji".

More information about the Unicode mailing list