Process of transforming existing glyphs to emojis via variants

Gabriel Tellez gtbot2007 at
Sun Sep 25 21:29:40 CDT 2022

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> 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 (
> ) 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: <>

More information about the Unicode mailing list