On Tue 30 Nov 2021 at 10:47:07 (+0000), Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:54:16AM -0800, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > eagerly leaving behind the originally all-text form of e-mail > > Unicode *is* text, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see the point in > limiting what I write to a 7-bit namespace from the 1960s, even if I am > fortunate enough that my chosen names are representable in it. I agree. It's almost as important that people read, or can switch to, a fixed width font when reading technical lists like this one. > > in favour of graphics that are gleefully being used to highlight them. > > My signature includes an emoji which is configured to be a reasonable > approximation of my appearance. … bearing in mind that what we see depends on the fonts we have installed. Until Sunday, your emoji had the bouffant/flip of Mary Tyler Moore, but then she got older and lost the flip. If I reverse the colours of the latter, it becomes more like a mop with a parting, say John Lennon before he grew it long. As for the firefox version, it manages to combine them, but throws the emphasis onto the face, and just looks like a mischievous kid's cartoon character. Cheers, David.
Attachment:
pre-recommended-fonts-bullseye.png
Description: PNG image
Attachment:
post-recommended-fonts-bullseye.png
Description: PNG image
Attachment:
firefox.png
Description: PNG image
