Process of transforming existing glyphs to emojis via variants

[Gabriel Tellez]

Wait, so is the non-emoji version of U+1FAAF the same as U+262C?

On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 3:57 AM James Kass via Unicode <
unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 2022-09-23 8:54 PM, Adib Behjat via Unicode wrote:
> > Going back to the original question, I’m still curious why a new code
> point was created instead of using variants for an existing code point, and
> if there’s a process for adding variants to existing code points so they
> can be represented as emojis.
> It's a good question.  Perhaps there was some misunderstanding
> involved.  The emoji-khanda proposal (
> https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21223-khanda-emoji.pdf ) mentions the
> symbol being encoded at U+262C (☬) under the name "adi shakti" with no
> emoji version and suggests that the symbol be updated to become
> "khanda".  (Note that U+626C has "khanda" as an alias for the symbol.)
> It may be the responsibility of the Emoji Subcommittee to determine if
> existing code points should have emoji variants rather than being left
> up to the proposer.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20220925/aa20b3fa/attachment.htm>