Q: why is this    an emoji?

ChitlinsCC wrote:

 

 

Perhaps you could give us an example how ANY emoji is inserted or viewed without invoking a "stylesheet" that loads an emoji font

This test page has no stylesheet of any sort.  Do you see any emoji.  Plain text emails also have no stylesheet and  should display emojis fine.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46870715/emoji.html

Cute little emoji !!

Page source

Page source of THIS ASC page

So... that means there should be no reason that emoji shouldn't display?

Nope... because every post goes through the "middleman" of tinyMCE Rich Text Editor - which pretty funky sometimes just for the easy stuff.

It seems to me that the issue is with TinyMCE & a "tool" to insert 'em like it does with the few emoticons it has (there a bazzillion of them too)

I wonder if you could jump into HTML mode in TinyMCE and succeed somehow?

It's your ball there, amigo

one last test = COPY your emoji from your DropBox page and

PASTE >       ⚽️  ⌚️❤️    

I copy pasted them ALL - not three that I see

EDITadded - see the "gaps" = before & after the soccer ball & where "AF" should be at the end?

UTF-8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8

\

       ⚽️  ⌚️❤️    < these were copy/paste from DropBox page into Advanced Editor and increased fontsize to 24 pt. The "table" was copy/paste from my earlier post's copy/paste example

It looks like ASC will display emojis that come from the Unicode BMP (only 4 numbers in their hex code) but not those from the higher planes (5 numbers in their hex codes).  Most are in the latter category I think.

The AF is supposed to be the flag of afghanistan.

Test of "4 digit" emoji:

✅✊✋✨❌❎❓❗➿⭐⭕⚽⛄⛅⛈⛎⛑⛔⛩⛪⛰⛱⛲⛳⛴⛵⛷⛸⛹⛺⛽⏩⏪⏫⏬⏭⏮⏯⏰⏱⏲⏳⏸⏹⏺

PS I understand that the "AF" you saw instead of an afghan flag is the result of MS's decision to show letter codes instead of flags in its own emoji font at this stage.

replying to all recent...

curious = any data is good data!!

AF v. FLAG (both posts) = this proves that emoji are displayed by the "font" that the system has loaded up, doesn't it?

It may be that the UTF-8 Wiki page might shed some light on the principals?

My guess is that emoji fonts are not quite the "Wild West".

That one article did say that ACE is the "closest" to the UniCode standard

Tom Gewecke wrote:

 

Pictures tell the tale of my experience...

ChitlinsCC wrote:

Pictures tell the tale of my experience...

 

This was an experiment to see if there was some other way to input 5-digit emoji into ASC (using their sequence of 2 4-digit equivalents).  But it does not work, indicating the editor or some other part of ASC lacks support for the higher reaches of Unicode.

ChitlinsCC wrote:

 

AF v. FLAG (both posts) = this proves that emoji are displayed by the "font" that the system has loaded up, doesn't it?

I think it's more accurate is to say that emoji are displayed by whatever emoji font is installed on the system.  Nothing is really "loaded up".

UTF-8 is just the standard encoding for all webpages or other text that use characters beyond ascii/latin-1, it doesn't play any special role in emoji issues.

The number of emoji in the Unicode standard has been growing rapidly, so it is pretty common for fonts to not be totally complete.

Gotcha. Figgered some "test" that failed - just showing proof, I guess.

When I "scanned" (I don't have all the time in the world today!) the Wiki on UTF-8, I saw reference to "UTF-16" - could that be the "higher reaches of Unicode" to which your refer? A "work in progress"?

At bottom, I have said I am not an emoji kinda fella, so any "illustrations" I feel I need to make here will likely be an inserted image

poTAYto - poTAHto (loaded up - installed)

(I think) we have now come to agree that FONTs are the common denominator in all this brouhaha, have we not?

May be that it is time for us to put  this subject to bed?

Been a pleasurable banter, amigo.

Buenos Tardes

ÇÇÇ

ChitlinsCC wrote:

 

(I think) we have now come to agree that FONTs are the common denominator in all this brouhaha, have we not?

Yes.  But it can be important to recognize the differences between webfonts which the user has to actually temporarily download, even if automatically, from a specific webpage in order to see its content and the os installed fonts which are available to display content at all times in all apps.

UTF-16 is an alternative unicode encoding which is normally only used internally to devices, while UTF-8 is standard for the internet.  The upper reaches of Unicode now have about the same number of characters as the lower, 4-digit, level, including most emoji, so it's kind of odd to find a site or editor which does not yet support them.