If we’re incredibly generous with what we call emoji then old MSN seahorses might count (if they actually existed, that is). Emojis aren’t all part of the spec. They predated the spec and colloquially people don’t mean the spec. Plus, Unicode has always been about matching human usage of things, not dictating how humans communicate. So if you apply the way emoji was used to refer to icons on phones before they were in Unicode, I think you could argue that a seahorse icon in MSN messenger was an emoji.
Wtf are you on about? Emoji existed since the 80s and the ones in IM apps were the most popular examples. It’s not “incredibly generous” to call them emoji, that’s what we called them back then, long before they started being included in unicode.
Unicode has always been about matching human usage of things
Exactly. Emoji usage was so widespread and popular, that they decided to standardize it.
If we’re incredibly generous with what we call emoji
This (and all the other "if"s in the comment) implies you do not agree that pre-unicode emoji count as emoji. I find that an extremely odd stance considering the popularity of emoji during those times.
The fact that some people disagree that there is a “seahorse emoji” means it is controversial, so I’m saying “if” because it’s more of a fuzzy topic. Plus if I just say any sort of smiley pictograph (not counting emoticons) is an emoji, I guarantee you someone would’ve "um actually"ed me. That stuff really annoys me, so unless I do research before making a comment I try to speak in general terms. This is a habit I’ve learned from my career as well. I try to make it clear when I’m certain I’m right versus when I’m only pretty sure I’m right. My comment was entirely based on my memory of reading things about this in the past. It’s way to time consuming to verify I’m right before I post, so I say “if” and “likely” a lot.
If we’re incredibly generous with what we call emoji then old MSN seahorses might count (if they actually existed, that is). Emojis aren’t all part of the spec. They predated the spec and colloquially people don’t mean the spec. Plus, Unicode has always been about matching human usage of things, not dictating how humans communicate. So if you apply the way emoji was used to refer to icons on phones before they were in Unicode, I think you could argue that a seahorse icon in MSN messenger was an emoji.
Wtf are you on about? Emoji existed since the 80s and the ones in IM apps were the most popular examples. It’s not “incredibly generous” to call them emoji, that’s what we called them back then, long before they started being included in unicode.
Exactly. Emoji usage was so widespread and popular, that they decided to standardize it.
Why so hostile only to agree?
This (and all the other "if"s in the comment) implies you do not agree that pre-unicode emoji count as emoji. I find that an extremely odd stance considering the popularity of emoji during those times.
The fact that some people disagree that there is a “seahorse emoji” means it is controversial, so I’m saying “if” because it’s more of a fuzzy topic. Plus if I just say any sort of smiley pictograph (not counting emoticons) is an emoji, I guarantee you someone would’ve "um actually"ed me. That stuff really annoys me, so unless I do research before making a comment I try to speak in general terms. This is a habit I’ve learned from my career as well. I try to make it clear when I’m certain I’m right versus when I’m only pretty sure I’m right. My comment was entirely based on my memory of reading things about this in the past. It’s way to time consuming to verify I’m right before I post, so I say “if” and “likely” a lot.