Re: Are there [start] emoji [end] style codes?

--0000000000005519a0064d9c56c9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Whoops, forgot I started this thread, another instance of my adhd's effects
:|
> The inappropriate religious material after the message should have been
removed by the moderators.

That's in my message signature, I don't think said moderator can remove
that. Also Nothing inappropriate about trying to guide lost souls to
salvation, only the cruel and/or naive try to prevent the spread of God's
word. That said I agree it's irrelevant to the topic I started so let's
just agree to shelve the subject with my response (by that I mean don't
respond to this response). If people want to read my signature they're
welcome to, likewise they're welcome to ignore it. Not my problem if they
wanna risk internal suffering =F0=9F=A4=B7

As far as the shift-in/shift-out encoding thing goes, it should still be
implemented as a fallback pool. Sooner or later the current pool will run
out. Reserving a couple of codes for that eventuality is always a good
idea. Since it's something for the future current software can easily
implement a default handling of this:

if ( code =3D=3D start_emoji ) while ( getnxtc() !=3D end_emoji );
if ( code =3D=3D end_emoji ) while ( getnxtc() !=3D end_emoji );
if ( code =3D=3D start_emoji || code =3D=3D end_emoji ) putnxtc('=EF=BF=BD'=
);

That would allow them to put off supporting that large range for later
since it's expected to not be touched until the current pool runs out.
Remember the goal of unicode is to support all characters, even if it needs
another pool for that later. Whether text encoding implements a shortcut to
that pool at a later date and gets named something like UTE-8 (Universal
Text formatting with Emoji pool shortcut) or something is an entirely
unrelated matter, this is merely for within the unicode space.

On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 at 19:47, Doug Ewell via Unicode <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Lee Shallis wrote:
>
> > [Are there [start] emoji [end] style codes?] If not I suggest making
> > them so you're no longer constrained to the tiny range of potential
> > codes that unicode offers.
>
> Unicode has more than 800,000 unassigned code points, which I don=E2=80=
=99t
> consider =E2=80=9Ctiny.=E2=80=9D Continuing to dip into this pool is cons=
idered preferable
> to introducing a new stateful =E2=80=9Cbegin/end=E2=80=9D mechanism, and =
all of the
> problems that those bring along.
>
> James Kass replied:
>
> > The inappropriate religious material after the message should have
> > been removed by the moderators.
>
> +1, emphatically.
>
> Phil Smith III replied (to Lee):
>
> > For starters, you=E2=80=99re confusing Unicode with encoding.
>
> This confused me greatly, until I realized Phil meant =E2=80=9C... with I=
SO
> 2022-style shift-in/shift-out encoding.=E2=80=9D
>
> Technically, you can in fact combine Unicode with ISO 2022 (for whatever
> reason), but adding a new mechanism, outside of Unicode, to encode emoji
> makes no sense at all.
>
> > Now, I can imagine modifier characters, like combining accents, that
> > would change skin tones etc.=E2=80=94but I=E2=80=99d rather not: combin=
ers have caused
> > enough trouble, and I=E2=80=99d hate to see new ones added.
>
> Um, isn=E2=80=99t that how skin tones are specified already?
>
> --
> Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>
>

--=20
Aethiests expect you to gamble your afterlife on nothingness, religions in
general expect you to follow 1001 (exaggeration for some, understatement
for others) rules and still gamble your afterlife on somehow not breaking
any of those rules (which is nigh on impossible).

Christianity is the only one that doesn't expect you to gamble, it just
expects you to desire to follow God's ways and entrust your soul to his
son's, the lord Jesus Christ's, sacrifice on the cross. Just 2 simple and
priceless things to guarantee yourself a place in heaven, are you really
willing to gamble your afterlife on anything else when the cost of losing
that gamble is eternal suffering?

For whether you believe in a God or not eternity is a fact and that same
fact guarantees life after the death of your flesh. Think carefully about
whether you would rather gamble for eternity in heaven with the only price
of being wrong being a little embarrassment or for reincarnation where the
price of being wrong is an eternity of being burned from flesh to bone and
soul over and over and over again.

--0000000000005519a0064d9c56c9
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:courier =
new,monospace">Whoops, forgot I started this thread, another instance of my=
 adhd&#39;s effects :|</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-fami=
ly:courier new,monospace">&gt;=C2=A0The inappropriate religious material af=
ter the message should have been <br>removed by the moderators.</div><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:courier new,monospace"><br></di=
v><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:courier new,monospace">=
That&#39;s in my message signature, I don&#39;t think said moderator can re=
move that. Also Nothing inappropriate about trying to guide lost souls to s=
alvation, only the cruel and/or naive try to prevent the spread of God&#39;=
s word. That said I agree it&#39;s irrelevant to the topic I started so let=
&#39;s just agree to shelve the subject with my response (by that I mean do=
n&#39;t respond to this response). If people want to read my signature they=
&#39;re welcome to, likewise they&#39;re welcome to ignore it. Not my probl=
em if they wanna risk internal suffering =F0=9F=A4=B7</div><div class=3D"gm=
ail_default" style=3D"font-family:courier new,monospace"><br></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:courier new,monospace">As far as =
the=C2=A0shift-in/shift-out encoding thing goes, it should still be impleme=
nted as a fallback pool. Sooner or later the current pool will run out. Res=
erving a couple of codes for that eventuality is always a good idea. Since =
it&#39;s something for the future current software can easily implement a d=
efault handling of this:</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-fa=
mily:courier new,monospace"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D=
"font-family:courier new,monospace">if ( code =3D=3D start_emoji ) while ( =
getnxtc() !=3D end_emoji );</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font=
-family:courier new,monospace">if ( code =3D=3D end_emoji ) while ( getnxtc=
() !=3D end_emoji );</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family=
:courier new,monospace">if ( code =3D=3D start_emoji || code =3D=3D end_emo=
ji ) putnxtc(&#39;=EF=BF=BD&#39;);</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=
=3D"font-family:courier new,monospace"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_defaul=
t" style=3D"font-family:courier new,monospace">That would allow them to put=
 off supporting that large range for later since it&#39;s expected to not b=
e touched until the current pool runs out. Remember the goal of unicode is =
to support all characters, even if it needs another pool for that later. Wh=
ether text encoding implements a shortcut to that pool at a later date and =
gets named something like UTE-8 (Universal Text formatting with Emoji pool =
shortcut) or something is an entirely unrelated matter, this is merely for =
within the unicode space.</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_qu=
ote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 at=
 19:47, Doug Ewell via Unicode &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]=
rg">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204=
,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Lee Shallis wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; [Are there [start] emoji [end] style codes?] If not I suggest making<b=
r>
&gt; them so you&#39;re no longer constrained to the tiny range of potentia=
l<br>
&gt; codes that unicode offers.<br>
<br>
Unicode has more than 800,000 unassigned code points, which I don=E2=80=99t=
 consider =E2=80=9Ctiny.=E2=80=9D Continuing to dip into this pool is consi=
dered preferable to introducing a new stateful =E2=80=9Cbegin/end=E2=80=9D =
mechanism, and all of the problems that those bring along.<br>
<br>
James Kass replied:<br>
<br>
&gt; The inappropriate religious material after the message should have<br>
&gt; been removed by the moderators.<br>
<br>
+1, emphatically.<br>
<br>
Phil Smith III replied (to Lee):<br>
<br>
&gt; For starters, you=E2=80=99re confusing Unicode with encoding.<br>
<br>
This confused me greatly, until I realized Phil meant =E2=80=9C... with ISO=
 2022-style shift-in/shift-out encoding.=E2=80=9D<br>
<br>
Technically, you can in fact combine Unicode with ISO 2022 (for whatever re=
ason), but adding a new mechanism, outside of Unicode, to encode emoji make=
s no sense at all.<br>
<br>
&gt; Now, I can imagine modifier characters, like combining accents, that<b=
r>
&gt; would change skin tones etc.=E2=80=94but I=E2=80=99d rather not: combi=
ners have caused<br>
&gt; enough trouble, and I=E2=80=99d hate to see new ones added.<br>
<br>
Um, isn=E2=80=99t that how skin tones are specified already?<br>
<br>
--<br>
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | <a href=3D"http://ewellic.org" rel=
=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">ewellic.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><div><br clear=3D"all"></div><br><span class=3D"gmail_si=
gnature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr"><div>Aethiests expect you to gamble your afterlife on nothin=
gness, religions in general expect you to follow 1001 (exaggeration for som=
e, understatement for others) rules and still gamble your afterlife on some=
how not breaking any of those rules (which is nigh on impossible).</div><di=
v><br></div><div>Christianity is the only one that doesn&#39;t expect you t=
o gamble, it just expects you to desire to follow God&#39;s ways and entrus=
t your soul to his son&#39;s, the lord Jesus Christ&#39;s, sacrifice on the=
 cross. Just 2 simple and priceless things to guarantee yourself a place in=
 heaven, are you really willing to gamble your afterlife on anything else w=
hen the cost of losing that gamble is eternal suffering?</div><div><br></di=
v><div>For whether you believe in a God or not eternity is a fact and that =
same fact guarantees life after the death of your flesh. Think carefully ab=
out whether you would rather gamble for eternity in heaven with the only pr=
ice of being wrong being a little embarrassment or for reincarnation where =
the price of being wrong is an eternity of being burned from flesh to bone =
and soul over and over and over again.</div></div></div>

--0000000000005519a0064d9c56c9--