Note: UTC=Unicode Technical Committee, the standards organization that determines what characters will be encoded for digital representation.
Courtney Milan (that’s me, I’m just writing about myself in the third person) submits document L2/16-072, a proposal to encode three dinosaurs as part of the Jurassic emoji.
Andrew West submits feedback, document sends feedback on Andrew West’s feedback, requesting even moar dinosaurs, and accurate scientific representation.
UTC Meeting #147 occurs. Here is the relevant section of the minutes:Translation: The UTC is tentatively giving consideration to dinosaur emoji in some form.
E.1.5 Jurassic Emoji Proposal [Milan, L2/16-072]
E.1.5.1 Feedback on Jurassic Emoji Proposal [West, L2/16-103]
[147-A114] Action Item for Peter Edberg, Emoji Subcommittee: Consider proposal L2/16-072 (dinosaurs) as part of a larger set of animals being considered.
[147-A115] Action Item for Rick McGowan: Respond to William Overington.
[147-A116] Action Item for Peter Edberg, Emoji Subcommittee: Update the emoji selection factors to state that we are not looking for scientific or taxonomic/systematic classification and proposals should not suggest too many gradations.
Andrew West and Ken Lunde, who are both way more plugged into Unicode issues than I am, tweeted me about the dinosaur issue.
Andrew West @BabelStone
@courtneymilan My understanding (and this is unofficial) is that the UTC want to encode only a single "representative" dinosaur emojiKen Lunde (小林剣)
The entire #DinosaurEmoji controversy is easily whittled down to a single Barnie-like #emoji.Translation: We might get only one dinosaur!
Courtney Milan (still me, in case you were wondering) sends further feedback to the UTC suggesting that the number of dinosaur emoji should be greater than or equal to two, at a minimum.