Process of transforming existing glyphs to emojis via variants
doug at ewellic.org
Mon Sep 26 11:36:38 CDT 2022
Gabriel Tellez wrote:
> Wait, so is the non-emoji version of U+1FAAF the same as U+262C?
Yes. The current thinking seems to be that this sort of duplicate encoding is preferably to "emojifying" existing characters, which has certainly caused some headaches on its own. For instance, I can no longer use the ordinary text symbols © and ® and ™ in some environments without them being converting to huge, comical emoji versions, even though these characters are supposed to default to text, and even when they are not followed by VS16.
It probably remains to be seen which approach causes fewer problems and less confusion.
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
More information about the Unicode