Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Terminal Support for Emoji

darrenburns.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 129 posts

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#21

Post by yorwba »

pavlov wrote: post #2

It still pains me that Unicode decided to get in the business of curating an ever-growing clip art collection. It’s like the Oxford English Dictionary decided that they’re actually poets; their main job is suddenly to invent brand new words that let people write with an exciting level of density and poetic license; and those new dictionary words would also be multi-color because everybody owns a pack of colored penci…

Unicode is only curating the clip-art collection, inventing brand-new entries is left to interested third parties.

So a closer analogy would be the Oxford English Dictionary adding newly-coined words, which—of course—they do https://www.oed.com/discover/the-oed-september-2021-update/ in addition to expanding coverage of older words (analogous to the Unicode Consortium working on historical scripts).

NB if you don't like multi-color emoji, you can also use a monochrome font for them.

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#22

Post by zokier »

avgcorrection wrote: post #8
pavlov wrote: post #2

It still pains me that Unicode decided to get in the business of curating an ever-growing clip art collection. It’s like the Oxford English Dictionary decided that they’re actually poets; their main job is suddenly to invent brand new words that let people write with an exciting level of density and poetic license; and those new dictionary words would also be multi-color because everybody owns a pack of colored penci…

Unicode needed to include written-on-paper glyphs that existed in the world. That makes sense to most people. But a lot, lot, lot of communication these days happen digitally (digital first). You can't scribble things as freely in a textbox like this one. You can certainly make suggestive combinations like `:)`, but you are pretty limited. (How do you scribble "family of three: mom, father, daughter" without any emoj…

> How do you propose that Unicode include glyph innovations that are digital-first?

Why does Unicode specifically need to include novel "innovations"?

It's arguably failure of the community that we have not been able to standardize interoperable higher level rich text formats, so now everything and kitchen sink needs to be bolted on Unicode instead in the name of interop.

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#23

Post by ilyt »

avgcorrection wrote: post #8
pavlov wrote: post #2

It still pains me that Unicode decided to get in the business of curating an ever-growing clip art collection. It’s like the Oxford English Dictionary decided that they’re actually poets; their main job is suddenly to invent brand new words that let people write with an exciting level of density and poetic license; and those new dictionary words would also be multi-color because everybody owns a pack of colored penci…

Unicode needed to include written-on-paper glyphs that existed in the world. That makes sense to most people. But a lot, lot, lot of communication these days happen digitally (digital first). You can't scribble things as freely in a textbox like this one. You can certainly make suggestive combinations like `:)`, but you are pretty limited. (How do you scribble "family of three: mom, father, daughter" without any emoj…

> (How do you scribble "family of three: mom, father, daughter" without any emojis?)

Why you need to?

We dealt without hieroglyphs just fine in communication.

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#25

Post by bazzargh »

38 wrote: post #7

works fine with Windows Terminal: http://0x0.st/H_S1.png but yes to be fair, the width on those ridiculous 5 codepoint emoji is off.

Is it windows or is it golang making the difference there? Golang's implementation of wcwidth is different, and a commonly used lib has an 'emoji' table which covers that bomb (1F4A3)

https://github.com/mattn/go-runewidth/blob/master/runewidth_...

The family emoji looks to have the wrong width, but it does resemble the behaviour supposed to be fixed by https://github.com/mattn/go-runewidth/pull/63 (see https://github.com/mattn/go-runewidth/issues/59 - like the flag example, that's multiple emojis with zwj right?)

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#26

Post by Sesse__ »

pavlov wrote: post #2

It still pains me that Unicode decided to get in the business of curating an ever-growing clip art collection. It’s like the Oxford English Dictionary decided that they’re actually poets; their main job is suddenly to invent brand new words that let people write with an exciting level of density and poetic license; and those new dictionary words would also be multi-color because everybody owns a pack of colored penci…

The Unicode Consortium's stated direction is that they want protocols to support stickers (arbitrary images) instead of emoji. But protocols don't seem to be doing that, so…

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#27

Post by phito »

avgcorrection wrote: post #8
pavlov wrote: post #2

It still pains me that Unicode decided to get in the business of curating an ever-growing clip art collection. It’s like the Oxford English Dictionary decided that they’re actually poets; their main job is suddenly to invent brand new words that let people write with an exciting level of density and poetic license; and those new dictionary words would also be multi-color because everybody owns a pack of colored penci…

Unicode needed to include written-on-paper glyphs that existed in the world. That makes sense to most people. But a lot, lot, lot of communication these days happen digitally (digital first). You can't scribble things as freely in a textbox like this one. You can certainly make suggestive combinations like `:)`, but you are pretty limited. (How do you scribble "family of three: mom, father, daughter" without any emoj…

> How do you scribble "family of three: mom, father, daughter" without any emojis

You don't. You use text.

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#28

Post by amelius »

pavlov wrote: post #14
avgcorrection wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unicode needed to include written-on-paper glyphs that existed in the world. That makes sense to most people. But a lot, lot, lot of communication these days happen digitally (digital first). You can't scribble things as freely in a textbox like this one. You can certainly make suggestive combinations like `:)`, but you are pretty limited. (How do you scribble "family of three: mom, father, daughter" without any emoj…

Are they glyphs or just vector graphics clip art? Unicode doesn’t include ligature code points for every English word either. Somehow we manage to keep glyphs and words separate. Why couldn’t we do the same for inline graphics? The copyright situation around emoji is actually worse now than if they’d been kept out of the standard. People expect emojis to look like on iPhone, but those specific graphics are owned by A…

In my ideal world, people would have a standard library of SVG emoji on their phones, they can send them around, but they can also save the emojis others use to their own library. Of course, artists can add new SVG emoji and send them around.

This way, we get an evolving library of emoji, just like how languages evolve. Unicode is stiffling this evolution.

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#29

Post by the_gipsy »

LorenDB wrote: post #6

I never have understood the push to emojify everything. But commit messages, options in menus, status outputs, you name it: I think we'd be better off leaving it in plain ASCII (or Unicode if your language needs that, just as long as you don't dip into the emoji). Emoji are quite nice for messaging people and occasionally some of the more generic ones can be useful for status indicators (think the red and green circl…

There are many languages that have multi-width symbols, it's not only emojis.

Re: Terminal Support for Emoji

#30

Post by pavlov »

yorwba wrote: post #21
pavlov wrote: post #2

It still pains me that Unicode decided to get in the business of curating an ever-growing clip art collection. It’s like the Oxford English Dictionary decided that they’re actually poets; their main job is suddenly to invent brand new words that let people write with an exciting level of density and poetic license; and those new dictionary words would also be multi-color because everybody owns a pack of colored penci…

Unicode is only curating the clip-art collection, inventing brand-new entries is left to interested third parties. So a closer analogy would be the Oxford English Dictionary adding newly-coined words, which—of course—they do https://www.oed.com/discover/the-oed-september-2021-update/ in addition to expanding coverage of older words (analogous to the Unicode Consortium working on historical scripts). NB if you don't l…

It’s not the same thing because Unicode is the only gatekeeper for emoji adoption. You can’t use an emoji that isn’t yet in the standard and deployed by the OS vendors. Whereas OED only adds words that have substantial real world usage.

Re: monochrome emoji rendering — an impossible proposition if you need to render any user-generated text. People simply can’t understand that their emoji might look different than when they picked it on their iPhone keyboard. The supposed rendering latitude on emojis is completely imaginary; in practice you need to get an emoji set that’s as close as possible to Apple’s without infringing on their design copyrights.

Post reply on HN