Icon Naming Specification proposal - add "<3" to emotes
Sun Mar 7 19:12:38 PST 2010
For "<3" I think it would probably be better to convert it to â¥ instead
of showing an icon. (\x2665) IS there any particularly good reason that
we shouldn't be encouraging that behavior instead of using an icon?
(FWIW, I believe FaceBook/etc... sites do this already as well.)
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:37 -0500, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
> Hello Rodney,
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:11:10 -0500
From: Greg Grossmeier <greg at grossmeier.net>
To: Rodney Dawes <dobey.pwns at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Icon Naming Specification proposal - add "<3" to emotes
<quoting name="Rodney Dawes" date="2010-02-24" time="14:03:41 -0500">
> Hi Greg,
> For "<3" I think it would probably be better to convert it to â¥ instead
> of showing an icon. (\x2665) IS there any particularly good reason that
> we shouldn't be encouraging that behavior instead of using an icon?
My response would be "but that is not how any other IM clients do it" and
by "any other" I mean gtalk, pidgin, and adium.
And, wouldn't that also suggest that we should convert ":)" to âº (Unicode
#263A) instead of an icon?
I guess I'm saying: if we convert these things to icons normally, lets
continue to do so.
Thanks for your quick response,
---- END EMAIL THREAD ----
I would also like to add another point now that I have re-read this: I
would suggest against Unicode conversion because not all fonts support
all Unicode elements and might not support â¥ or âº, so making all
emoticons actual images would be the safest way to implement this by the
IM applications (Empathy in this case).
All the best,
| Greg Grossmeier |
| http://grossmeier.net |
More information about the xdg