W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2014

Re: [css-fonts] new generic font 'emoji'

From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:18:17 +0100
Message-ID: <53F61BC9.3040709@gmail.com>
To: Raph Levien <raph@google.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, public-webfonts-wg <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On 21/8/14 16:58, Raph Levien wrote:
> There is a proposal to use Unicode variation selectors to disambiguate
> between color and monochrome renderings of emoji / symbols.

This is more than just a proposal; there is an extensive list of 
already-standardized variation sequences for characters that may have 
both "text" and "emoji" renderings:

   http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.html


> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/tr51-1d.html

TR51 does include additional proposals that are also relevant here, such 
as recommendations for the choice of default presentation in the absence 
of variation selectors. So this is definitely an area that is still 
under development within Unicode.

JK


>
> I'm not necessarily advocating that approach over specifying it at a
> font level, just pointing out that there is a proposal on the table to
> handle this use case. I think variation selectors are considered pretty
> arcane for the vast majority of web developers.
>
> Raph
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com
> <mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:57 AM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com
>     <mailto:jdaggett@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>      >
>      > Currently CSS defines a set of five generic fonts [1]:
>      >
>      >   serif, sans-serif, monospace, cursive, fantasy
>      >
>      > I'd like to propose expanding this to include a generic font for
>      > emoji characters:
>      >
>      >   emoji
>      >
>      > The 'emoji' value would map to whatever emoji font is available on a
>      > given platform (e.g. Apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Noto Color
>      > Emoji).
>      >
>      > Part of the motivation here is that when Unicode defined a mapping
>      > of emoji characters into Unicode, it explicitly unified some of
>      > these with existing symbol codepoints. If an author relies on system
>      > font fallback to choose a font there's no guarantee an emoji font
>      > will be prioritized over a symbol font, since it's difficult for a
>      > user agent to distinguish between symbol vs. emoji usage. Specifying
>      > the 'emoji' value in a fontlist would prioritize the use of color
>      > glyphs for all codepoints covered by the emoji font.
>
>     This seems reasonable to me, given the overlap in symbols and emoji.
>
>     ~TJ
>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2014 16:18:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:45 UTC