5 ms·

That's not an emoji, it's just a standard character[0] - added to Unicode in 1993. ♠♦ There's a whole bunch of them[1]! ♦♠ [0]: https://www.compart.com/en/uni

That's not an emoji, it's just a standard character[0] - added to Unicode in 1993. ♠♦ There's a whole bunch of them[1]! ♦♠ [0]: https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+2665 https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+2665 [1]: https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/block/U+2600 https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/block/U+2600

delusional 4y ago
Is there any functional difference between any of those characters and emoji? To me they're all just "standard characters"
- moreira 4y ago
  They're just characters from different Unicode blocks, there's no functional difference between them that I'm aware of, other than that characters from some blocks are not allowed here on HN, including all emoji characters. When I said "standard characters" perhaps I should've been clearer. I meant "they're non-emoji characters". Sorry, I didn't realise it would cause confusion.
- monitron 4y ago
  Unlike "normal" characters, emoji are often displayed in full color, independent of whatever color the surrounding text is being rendered in.
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  Found an interesting source on the wiki for emoji, basically Unicode 1 wanted to encode all existing text, it wasn't until Unicode 6 that they widened the scope to include "characters" that don't exist yet: > For the majority of characters that are not emoji, the UTC looks for evidence of existing usage as text. Proposers need to establish that there is some reasonable body of text, either modern or historic, that uses that character. ... > For emoji, rather than look for evidence of existing textual use — since emoji effectively cannot exist in text until they are encoded — we look for evidence of likely high usage once they are encoded, plus a number of other factors. https://unicode.org/emoji/principles.html https://unicode.org/emoji/principles.html
- crazygringo 4y ago
  Yes, functionally those characters are single-tone and will change color in a word processor. Emoji are full-color and can't have their color changed in a word processor in the same way. Also, in practice those characters' appearances are tied to the font you've selected, while emoji's appearances are usually tied to the OS you're using (although sometimes the specific app -- e.g. Gmail in the browser on a Mac uses Android-style emoji rather than Mac-style emoji).
  - easrng 4y ago
    They render in color for me. Those characters have 2 ways they can be rendered and the default varies. You can use the U+FE0F Variation Selector-16 to force them to show as emojis or U+FE0E Variation Selector-15 to show them as normal paths. Though color fonts aren't restricted to emojis, they can be used for any characters, they just aren't very common.

delusional 4y ago

Is there any functional difference between any of those characters and emoji? To me they're all just "standard characters"

moreira 4y ago
They're just characters from different Unicode blocks, there's no functional difference between them that I'm aware of, other than that characters from some blocks are not allowed here on HN, including all emoji characters. When I said "standard characters" perhaps I should've been clearer. I meant "they're non-emoji characters". Sorry, I didn't realise it would cause confusion.
monitron 4y ago
Unlike "normal" characters, emoji are often displayed in full color, independent of whatever color the surrounding text is being rendered in.
jazzyjackson 4y ago
Found an interesting source on the wiki for emoji, basically Unicode 1 wanted to encode all existing text, it wasn't until Unicode 6 that they widened the scope to include "characters" that don't exist yet: > For the majority of characters that are not emoji, the UTC looks for evidence of existing usage as text. Proposers need to establish that there is some reasonable body of text, either modern or historic, that uses that character. ... > For emoji, rather than look for evidence of existing textual use — since emoji effectively cannot exist in text until they are encoded — we look for evidence of likely high usage once they are encoded, plus a number of other factors. https://unicode.org/emoji/principles.html https://unicode.org/emoji/principles.html
crazygringo 4y ago
Yes, functionally those characters are single-tone and will change color in a word processor. Emoji are full-color and can't have their color changed in a word processor in the same way. Also, in practice those characters' appearances are tied to the font you've selected, while emoji's appearances are usually tied to the OS you're using (although sometimes the specific app -- e.g. Gmail in the browser on a Mac uses Android-style emoji rather than Mac-style emoji).
- easrng 4y ago
  They render in color for me. Those characters have 2 ways they can be rendered and the default varies. You can use the U+FE0F Variation Selector-16 to force them to show as emojis or U+FE0E Variation Selector-15 to show them as normal paths. Though color fonts aren't restricted to emojis, they can be used for any characters, they just aren't very common.