Live data from Hacker News

Announcing Unicode 7.0

unicode-inc.blogspot.com

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#31
post #12

Do we really need small pictures in fonts?

I had the exact same question pop up in my mind after seeing the emoji's. I understand all characters can be considered nothing but pictures, but a thermometer, really? Is this used in any widespread language to be of significance to Unicode? Is Unicode trying to also offer some kind of clipart capability? I think we've seen our fair share of derailed projects in IT. Unicode is certainly a very critical project, whic…

Unicode contains a wide range of different scripts.

For example, some are phonographic (the letters represent phonemes, i.e. speech sounds), others are logographic (the letters represent words, or morphemes).

Both of these can be featural: The Korean Hangul script is phonographic, but the letter shapes are not arbitrary. Some of them are visualizations of mouth shape or tongue position when producing the sound. For example the velar consonant ㄱ (somewhere inbetween the English g and k, roughly) is the tongue position as seen from the side.

A logogram can also be featural, i.e. it can look like the thing it represents. This would be the case for a glyph that means "thermometer" and looks to viewers like a thermometer. It could also be arbitrary - some shape that you just agree on to mean thermometer. Perhaps sharing some graphical aspects with topically related logograms.

They're all just spots on a spectrum.

(Edit: I briefly touched on pictograms vs. ideograms a bit more down below.)

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#32
post #27
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, putting poo into unicode is just the same as hieroglyphs? Or hebrew or arabic or chinese characters? Still don't agree.

How are emoji different from other logograms?

I don't think emoji are logograms. Logograms represent actual words in a language, as opposed to emoji which don't have a conventional mapping to words (unless you consider the unicode character names such mappings, which is odd since most users don't have any idea what the character names are).

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#33
post #12

Do we really need small pictures in fonts?

I had the exact same question pop up in my mind after seeing the emoji's. I understand all characters can be considered nothing but pictures, but a thermometer, really? Is this used in any widespread language to be of significance to Unicode? Is Unicode trying to also offer some kind of clipart capability? I think we've seen our fair share of derailed projects in IT. Unicode is certainly a very critical project, whic…

That's amusing, because I looked at the thermometer, and thought, oh that's good, I can use that. But a chilli pepper, do we really need a character for a chilli pepper? So to answer your question, unicode is trying to bridge the gap in communication that offers a language independent set of recognizable glyphs that can be used to communicate. And one mans chilli pepper is another mans thermometer.

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#34
post #27
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, putting poo into unicode is just the same as hieroglyphs? Or hebrew or arabic or chinese characters? Still don't agree.

How are emoji different from other logograms?

I don't even understand your question. How is a character of a normal language (and i consider chinese normal) different from the picture of crap? And why would we put up a huge library of tiny pictures? If i want to look at cat pics, i don't open up the font browser. And where is the HN-logo unicode point? Can i register my own somewhere?

Unicode should be used to represent language and not anti-piracy symbols or poo or snowmen. Just my opinion, though. Obviously a great many people like shit in their fonts.

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#35
post #28

Forgive my ignorance, but how do these actually enter the real world? Do browsers adopt these new characters?

Technically the entirety of the unicode range is supported by browsers right now -- they just don't exist in fonts at all. What Unicode does is say that "this codepoint" means "this". At that point, fonts start adding glyphs to mean "this" and authors start adding codepoints that refer to "this".

If you look at FontAwesome, it uses characters in the "unicode private use area" -- which are effectively undefined -- but putting those codepoints in your HTML document while having the appropriate font loaded will show the appropriate icon glyphs.

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#36
This page has links to the proposals to add characters: http://babelstone.blogspot.com/2013/10/whats-new-in-unicode-...

Including this one with comments on the Wingdings addition. http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4239.pdf

  a) Ireland recommends adding the following new characters to this table: 
  1F597 REVERSED HAND WITH MIDDLE FINGER EXTENDED 
  1F598 RAISED HAND WITH PART BETWEEN MIDDLE AND RING FINGERS

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#37
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are emoji different from other logograms?

I don't think emoji are logograms. Logograms represent actual words in a language, as opposed to emoji which don't have a conventional mapping to words (unless you consider the unicode character names such mappings, which is odd since most users don't have any idea what the character names are).

You're right, but at the same time the level of abstraction it offers over spoken language is one of the reasons for the historic success of logographic writing. For example, in Chinese history it allowed mutually unintelligible dialects to more easily exchange information in writing, and it isolated orthography from shifts in pronunciation to a greater degree than possible with phonographic scripts. I feel like emoji have some similar properties along these lines, but of course also their own set of problems (specific visualizations can become dated, for example).

A fair bunch of Chinese characters are also actually pictographic (they're an image of something) or ideographic (they represent an abstract idea, not a morpheme or word) in origin, if not current usage.

This stuff - synergies and conflicts between writing systems and various media - fascinates me. Chinese writing for example now suffers from the problem that if your medium doesn't allow free-form painting/graphical compositing (like our computers largely don't right now) you can't easily coin new logograms, since you need a central registry that's slow to distribute to leaf nodes (cf. Unicode). So what's happening now is that new words get coined by recombining existing characters based on their sound value, adding a phonographic layer on top. And of course inputting Chinese has also become dependent on auxiliary systems like pinyin-based IMEs.

Meanwhile, the Korean Hangul alphabet has the interesting property that some of the letters graphically derive from each other with consistent patterns of "take this, add a stroke and you get this", making it easier to design keyboards with reduced numbers of buttons to enter combos. There's the theory that this contributed to the success of texting/mobile in Korea, and is a contributing reason for the healthy mobile industry there.

I'm getting far from the original topic with this rambling, but it still reads on it in one sense: There's a lot of variety to writing systems, and it's worth thinking about emoji as a spot on the spectrum instead of in isolation.

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#38
post #27
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, putting poo into unicode is just the same as hieroglyphs? Or hebrew or arabic or chinese characters? Still don't agree.

How are emoji different from other logograms?

There is a good case for adding ancient languages to Unicode. I can also see the case for adding smiley faces, which could be seen as a contemporary global language. But I fail to see the case for pictures of poop, pizza and cowbell. That just seems a bit random to me. Maybe everyone is drawing the line somewhere else, but I'm guessing most people don't want to go down the road of adding company logo's for Coca-Cola and McDonalds or pictures of the Americans presidents or the sigils from Game of Thrones. It's good that Unicode is extendable and all, but that doesn't mean we should be adding glyphs just for the sake of it.

Also, adding political glyphs is a sure way to ruin the universality of Unicode (I'm looking at you no-piracy).

All that said, I love Unicode, it has flaws but I think it's brilliant (no sarcasm).

Also, can't wait to actually use the man-in-business-suit-levitating-glyph (sarcasm).

I'd use the Unicode sarcasm marks, but your font probably doesn't support them yet...

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#39
post #12

Do we really need small pictures in fonts?

That's not really the right question. We already have small pictures in fonts, just look at Wingdings or Webdings. Unicode is just assigning them to unique code points so they can be represented in a document without requiring the font to be specified.

Re: Announcing Unicode 7.0

#40
post #9

"Notched Right Semicircle With Three Dots"? I'm not sure I want to know what this would be used for.

This is a reversed form of the preceding Unicode symbol located at U+1F543 (proposed location): . This symbol is used on right-hand pages to denote an Orthodox Lower Rank feast. As well, this symbol can be used to denote one of the two lower rank feasts in black-and-white printing.
Post reply on HN