<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> </head> <body><div class="auto-created-dir-div" dir="auto" style="unicode-bidi: embed;"><style>p{margin:0}</style><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:</span><div><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p>> <span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">That's not a format, it's a user interface ("the user is presented...") </span></div><div><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Fine, it can be described as a user interface. Better still, as a script-independent and language-independent user interface.</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">> </span><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: inline !important;">Unicode doesn't standardize user interfaces.</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: inline !important;"> </span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: inline !important;">I don't know, as I am no expert on categorizing all of the standardization content that Unicode Inc. has published, nor am I am aware of any policies that may exist that would prevent Unicode Inc. choosing sixty-four emoji to populate an 8 by 8 grid of emoji and Unicode Inc. publishing it is some form.</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: inline !important;"> </span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: inline !important;">> </span><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: inline !important;">Restricting the permissible alphabet to emoji is just about as bad/annoying (for many users) as restricting it to ASCII or Cyrillic or whatever, except that it's more evenly hard on everyone.</span></p><p> </p><p>Quite possibly it would be, yet that is not what I am suggesting.</p><p> </p><p>I am suggesting an additional facility that could be a very useful facility to have available for use in some circumstances. There is absolutely nothing in my suggestion that would restrict other user interface systems for passwords from being used. Indeed, on a tablet computer end users could be presented with a choice of how to enter a password, with two or more choices presented each in its own tile, with the tiles presented side by side so that the end user can choose which one to use to set up and use a password.</p><p> </p><p><span style="display: inline !important;">Certainly any individual or organization could choose to select sixty-four emoji to populate an 8 by 8 grid of emoji and publish it, make it open source in a document, or even produce it as a pop art style poster. The poster might end up as an exhibit at MoMA in New York as an example of emoji being applied for a practical purpose.</span><br></p><p> </p><p>However, for the particular layout to become used in practice by lots of independent app producers, the particular layout needs to have the provenance of being published by a widely-respected standardization body.</p><p> </p><p>So I am hoping that Unicode Inc. will take up this idea and publish a particular layout of emoji and some notes about how to use it, doing that either within one of the existing projects or as a stand-alone project as Unicode Inc. decides.</p><p> </p><p><span style="display: inline !important;">William Overington</span></p><p> </p><p>Saturday 9 April 2022</p><p> </p><p><br></p></div></div></body></html>