On Saturday, 2 December 2017 at 16:44:56 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 December 2017 at 12:25:22 UTC, codephantom wrote:
>> Do the people on the unicode consortium consider such communication to be invalid?
>
> https://splinternews.com/violent-emoji-are-starting-to-get-people-in-trouble-wit-1793845130
>
> On the other hand try to google "emoji sexual"…

No. Humans never express negative emotions, and also, never communicate a desire to have sex. That's explains a lot about the unicode consortium. 's', 'e', 'x' is ok, just not together.

Q.What's the difference between a politician and an emoji?

A.Nothing. You cannot take either at face value.

..oophs. politics again. I should know better.

but my wider point is, unicode emoji's are useless if they only contain those that 'some' consider to be polictically correct, or socially acceptable.

The Unicode consortium is a bunch of ...   (I don't have the unicode emoji representation yet to complete that sentence).

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 02:20:10AM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
> My car has a bunch emoticons labeling the controls. I can't figure out what any of them do without reading the manual, or just pushing random buttons until what I want happens. One button has an icon on it that looks like a snowflake. What does that do? Turn on the A/C? Defrost the frosty windows?  Set the AWD in slippery mode? Turn on the Christmas lights?

The same can be argued for the icon mania started by the GUI craze in the 90's that has now become the de facto standard.  Some icons are more obvious than others, but nowadays GUI toolbars are full of inscrutible icons of unclear meaning that are basically opaque unless you already have prior knowledge of what they're supposed to represent. Thankfully most(?) GUI programs have enough sanity left to provide tooltips with textual labels for what each button means.  Still, it betrays the emperor's invisible clothes of the "graphics == intuitive" mantra -- you still have to learn the icons just like you have to learn the keywords of a text-based UI, before you can use the software effectively.

Reminds me also of the infamous Mystery Meat navigation style of the 90's, where people would use images for navigation weblinks on their website, that you basically don't know where they're linking to until you click on it.

This is why I think GUIs and the whole "desktop metaphor" craze is heading the wrong direction, and why 95% of my computer usage is via a text terminal. There's a place for graphical interfaces, but it's gone too far these days.

But thanks to Unicode emoticons, we can now have icons on my text terminal too, isn't that just wonderful?! Esp. when a missing/incompatible font causes them to show up as literal blank boxes. The power of a standardized, universal character set, lemme tell ya!


T

-- 
Almost all proofs have bugs, but almost all theorems are true. -- Paul Pedersen

On Sunday, 3 December 2017 at 01:11:14 UTC, codephantom wrote:
>
> but my wider point is, unicode emoji's are useless if they only contain those that 'some' consider to be polictically correct, or socially acceptable.
>
> The Unicode consortium is a bunch of ...   (I don't have the unicode emoji representation yet to complete that sentence).

btw. Good article here, further demonstrating my point..

"We're talking about engineers that are concerned about standards and internationalization issues who now have to do something more in line with Apple or Google's marketing teams,".

https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/thanks-to-apples-influence-youre-not-getting-a-rifle-emoji

On 12/2/2017 5:59 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> [...]

Even worse, companies go and copyright their icons, guaranteeing they have to be substantially different for every company!

If there ever was an Emperor's New Clothes, it's icons and emojis.

On Saturday, 2 December 2017 at 22:16:09 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Friday, 1 December 2017 at 23:16:45 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 03:04:44PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2017 9:23 AM, Kagamin wrote:
>>> > On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 03:37:26 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>>> > > Be aware Microsoft is alone in thinking that UTF-16 was awesome. Everybody else standardized on UTF-8 for Unicode.
>>> > 
>>> > UCS2 was awesome. UTF-16 is used by Java, JavaScript, Objective-C, Swift, Dart and ms tech, which is 28% of tiobe index.
>>> 
>>> "was" :-) Those are pretty much pre-surrogate pair designs, or based
>>> on them (Dart compiles to JavaScript, for example).
>>> 
>>> UCS2 has serious problems:
>>> 
>>> 1. Most strings are in ascii, meaning UCS2 doubles memory consumption. Strings in the executable file are twice the size.
>>
>> This is not true in Asia, esp. where the CJK block is extensively used. A CJK block character is 3 bytes in UTF-8, meaning that string sizes are 150% of the UCS2 encoding.  If your code contains a lot of CJK text, that's a lot of bloat.
>
> Yep, that's why five years back many of the major Chinese sites were still not using UTF-8:
>
> http://xahlee.info/w/what_encoding_do_chinese_websites_use.html

Summary

Taiwan sites almost all use UTF-8. Very old ones still use BIG5.

Mainland China sites mostly still use GBK or GB2312, but a few newer ones use UTF-8.

Many top Japan, Korea, sites also use UTF-8, but some uses EUC (Extended Unix Code) variants.

This probably means that UTF-8 might dominate in the future.

mmmh
>
> That led that Chinese guy to also rant against UTF-8 a couple years ago:
>
> http://xahlee.info/comp/unicode_utf8_encoding_propaganda.html

A rant from someone reproaching a video it doesn't provide reasons why utf-8 is good by not providing any reasons why utf-8 is bad. I'm not denying the issues with utf-8, only that the ranter doesn't provide any useful info on what the issues the "Asian" encounter with it, besides legacy reasons (which are important but do not enter in judging the technical quality of an encoding).
Add to that that he advocates for GB18030 which is quite inferior to utf-8 except in the legacy support area (here some of the advantages of utf-8 that GB-18030 does not possess: auto-synchronization, algorithmic mapping of codepoints, error detection).
If his only beef with utf-8 is the size for CJK text then he shouldn't argue for UTF-32 as he seems to do at the end.

On 12/2/17 11:28 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/2/2017 5:59 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> Even worse, companies go and copyright their icons, guaranteeing they have to be substantially different for every company!

I like this site for icons. Only requires you to reference them in your about box:

https://icons8.com/

-Steve

On Sunday, 3 December 2017 at 01:59:58 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Still, it betrays the emperor's invisible clothes of the "graphics == intuitive" mantra -- you still have to learn the icons just like you have to learn the keywords of a text-based UI, before you can use the software effectively.

What happened when you ran vi for the first time?

On 12/2/17 5:16 PM, Joakim wrote:
> Yep, that's why five years back many of the major Chinese sites were still not using UTF-8:
> 
> http://xahlee.info/w/what_encoding_do_chinese_websites_use.html
> 
> That led that Chinese guy to also rant against UTF-8 a couple years ago:
> 
> http://xahlee.info/comp/unicode_utf8_encoding_propaganda.html

BTW has anyone been in contact with Xah Lee? Perhaps we could commission him to write some tutorial material for D. -- Andrei

On Monday, 4 December 2017 at 21:23:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/2/17 5:16 PM, Joakim wrote:
>> Yep, that's why five years back many of the major Chinese sites were still not using UTF-8:
>> 
>> http://xahlee.info/w/what_encoding_do_chinese_websites_use.html
>> 
>> That led that Chinese guy to also rant against UTF-8 a couple years ago:
>> 
>> http://xahlee.info/comp/unicode_utf8_encoding_propaganda.html
>
> BTW has anyone been in contact with Xah Lee? Perhaps we could commission him to write some tutorial material for D. -- Andrei

I traded email with him last summer, emailed you his email address just now.