Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday November 06 2017, @11:10AM   Printer-friendly
from the oh-shit dept.

A couple of the people deciding the fate of new emojis in the Unicode standards are upset over the latest pile of crap:

The argument over the emoji is between developers working with the Emoji Subcommittee of the Unicode Consortium, the nonprofit corporation that develops, maintains and promotes software internationalization standards. The committee is currently considering implementing a number of new emojis next year, but the frowning poo emoji alone has caused some members to become rather upset.

According to documents obtained by Buzzfeed, objections have been made on the grounds that the proposed emoji is a poor choice. "Organic waste isn't cute ... It is bad enough that the [Emoji Subcommittee] came up with it, but it beggars belief that the [Unicode Technical Committee] actually approved it ... The idea that our 5 committees would sanction further cute graphic characters based on this should embarrass absolutely everyone who votes yes on such an excrescence," one person wrote. "Will we have a CRYING PILE OF POO next? PILE OF POO WITH TONGUE STICKING OUT? PILE OF POO WITH QUESTION MARKS FOR EYES? PILE OF POO WITH KARAOKE MIC?"

Another person wrote, "I'm concerned that this character will open the floodgates for an open-ended set of PILE OF POO emoji with emotions, such as CRYING PILE OF POO, PILE OF POO WITH LOOK OF TRIUMPH, PILE OF POO SCREAMING IN FEAR, etc. Is there really any need to add a range of emotions to PILE OF POO? I personally think that changing PILE OF POO to a de facto SMILING PILE OF POO was wrong, but adding F|FROWNING PILE OF POO as a counterpart is even worse. If this is accepted then there will be no neutral, expressionless PILE OF POO, so at least a PILE OF POO WITH NO FACE would be required to be encoded to restore some balance."

I linked the Unicode 11 emoji candidates last time, but did not notice Frowning Pile Of Poo. This could be solved if they allowed any emoji to be used as a modifier for another emoji. Bar Of Soap + Frowning Pile Of Poo = Frowning Clean Pile of Poo or Frowning Poo-Covered Bar of Soap.

Also at Boing Boing.

Previously: Apple's New iPhone X will let You Control the Poo Emoji with Your Face
Google CEO Drops Everything to Fix Cheeseburger Emoji


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday November 06 2017, @06:49PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @06:49PM (#593237) Journal

    Emoji should embarrass the entire committee, not just poop-emoji, but all of them. They should not exist in Unicode, period.

    Yes. That.

    They have no argument against different variants of a poo emoji. They opened that floodgate once they decided to accept emojis.

    I'm waiting for the upgrade from UTF-8 to UTF-256 where character codes are big enough for anyone! An entire sub committee could reserve a space for every possible 8x8 pixel graphic. That would take only 2^64 characters of the huge 2^256 character space. Then I could really draw anything I want in a terminal over SSH. For a plain 24x80 character terminal, with UTF-256, including the 8x8 pixel graphic characters, that would give me 640x192 pixels on a terminal. But UTF-8 would have room for Klingon and a language for every other sci-fi universe.

    If that were not enough, they could double the space by upgrading to UTF-257. Oh, what the heck, just increase to UTF-512 encoding.

    --
    The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Funny=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5