7th April 2016, 6:44 PM
I know you like specific definitions, so here we go. Smilies refer to using text to make a face, like : - ) and the like. Over time, this was expanded to include image files various message boards and other services automatically use in place of that text art, such as :D . Emoji actually refers to a character set, but that character set can and is also grouped under the more general "smilies" term. Basically, it's the new Wingdings. A few years ago, the ASCII group officially approved using a large section of the ascii standard to house pointers indicating smilies. The ASCII standard is a pretty huge "space" so using them for this purpose isn't depriving any language character sets of room in the standard any time soon.
Instant messengers and various text message clients were quick to latch on, implementing their own "fonts" for the new addition pretty quickly. Now, rather than rely on interpreting combinations of letters, one can just "type" the emoji itself, and it is treated just as another character, and understood identically no matter the client. The only difference is the artwork each client uses to represent that emoji (the "font", more or less). Apple has their own, and Google has their own. Every year or so, the ASCII group defines some new "characters" in the emoji set, such as adding a bunch of racially defined smilies (like a black handed thumbs up).
So far, so good, but I do have one complaint. Now, in order for any client to claim it has "full ascii support", they have to set aside a team of artists to draw their own emojis for each of the new characters. This takes a lot of time, and many would rather just go without full ascii compliance than bother. The ASCII group themselves may make their own "font" of smilies and release it as an open standard any group can use, which would resolve that issue a bit.
Instant messengers and various text message clients were quick to latch on, implementing their own "fonts" for the new addition pretty quickly. Now, rather than rely on interpreting combinations of letters, one can just "type" the emoji itself, and it is treated just as another character, and understood identically no matter the client. The only difference is the artwork each client uses to represent that emoji (the "font", more or less). Apple has their own, and Google has their own. Every year or so, the ASCII group defines some new "characters" in the emoji set, such as adding a bunch of racially defined smilies (like a black handed thumbs up).
So far, so good, but I do have one complaint. Now, in order for any client to claim it has "full ascii support", they have to set aside a team of artists to draw their own emojis for each of the new characters. This takes a lot of time, and many would rather just go without full ascii compliance than bother. The ASCII group themselves may make their own "font" of smilies and release it as an open standard any group can use, which would resolve that issue a bit.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)