unicode / emoji in documentation (was Re: Common situations where a bug isn't real)

Stephen M. Webb stephen.webb at canonical.com
Sun Jun 22 21:29:23 UTC 2014


On 06/22/2014 01:59 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> On 22/06/14 18:12, José Antonio Rey wrote:
>> Maybe then we would fall into the situation where people who use other OSs and don't have the Emoji font
>> installed in their systems cannot see them properly, or even the same stuff as with the Android/iOS example that
>> was given before.
> 
> I have emailed the Unicode consortium about this issue of the standard not being practicable.
> 
> The message says:
> 
> As seen <https://lists.launchpad.net/papercuts-ninja/maillist.html> we, the Ubuntu Community, are finding some
> problems while trying to include Unicode Emoticons, Symbols and Pictographs as standard; as they're presented very
> inconsistently across platforms.

I think your understanding of how the Unicode standard works with respect to the implementation of fonts representing
Unicode.  There is certainly nothing in the Unicode standard that says anything about how a foundry should provides
its own artistic representation of a code point or glyph.  If a font is designed such that each and every letter looks
like a big hairy swollen reproductive organ (and I believe I know of at least one typeface that does so although I
will not provide links), it is not wrong in the eyes of the Unicode consortium.

If you really want to include graphics on a web page, use graphics.  Emoji characters just do not provide the level of
quality and maturity I expect from an official Ubuntu web site.

-- 
Stephen M. Webb  <stephen at ubuntu.com>
https://launchpad.net/~bregma



More information about the Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list