<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>We generally think of emoji as a poor choice for reliable
identifiers.</p>
<p>Which makes this discussion on the public unicode mailing list
somewhat interesting.</p>
<p>A./</p>
<p>PS: the discussion is archived
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2018-m03/0075.html">https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2018-m03/0075.html</a><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: base1024 encoding using Unicode emojis</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:11:09 +0900</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>Martin J. Dรผrst via Unicode <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:unicode@unicode.org"><unicode@unicode.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Organization:
</th>
<td>Aoyama Gakuin University</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td>Keith Turner <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:keith@deenlo.com"><keith@deenlo.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">CC: </th>
<td>unicode Unicode Discussion <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Unicode@unicode.org"><Unicode@unicode.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<pre>On 2018/03/12 02:07, Keith Turner via Unicode wrote:
> Yeah, it certainly results in larger utf8 strings. For example a sha256
> hash is 112 bytes when encoded as Ecoji utf8. For base64, sha256 is 44
> bytes.
>
> Even though its more bytes, Ecoji has less visible characters than base64
> for sha256. Ecoji has 28 visible characters and base64 44. So that makes
> me wonder which one would be quicker for a human to verify on average?
> Also, which one is more accurate for a human to verify? I have no idea. For
> accuracy, it seems like a lot of thought was put into the visual uniqueness
> of Unicode emojis.
Using emoji to help people verify security information is an interesting
idea. What I'm afraid is that even if emoji are designed with
distinctiveness in mind, some people may have difficulties distinguish
all the various face variants. Also, while emoji get designed so that
in-font distinguishability is high, the same may not apply across fonts
(e.g. if one has to compare a printed version with a version on-screen).
Regards, Martin.
>> 2018-03-11 6:04 GMT+01:00 Keith Turner via Unicode <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:unicode@unicode.org"><unicode@unicode.org></a>:
>>
>>> I created a neat little project based on Unicode emojis. I thought
>>> some on this list may find it interesting. It encodes arbitrary data
>>> as 1024 emojis. The project is called Ecoji and is hosted on github
>>> at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/keith-turner/ecoji">https://github.com/keith-turner/ecoji</a>
>>>
>>> Below are some examples of encoding and decoding.
>>>
>>> $ echo 'Unicode emojis are awesome!!' | ecoji
>>> ๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ซ๐ค๐ข๐ฅ๐ฎ๐พ๐๐๐ฏ๐๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ช๐จ๐ค๐ฅ๐ค๐๐
>>>
>>> $ echo ๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ซ๐ค๐ข๐ฅ๐ฎ๐พ๐๐๐ฏ๐๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ช๐จ๐ค๐ฅ๐ค๐๐ | ecoji -d
>>> Unicode emojis are awesome!!
>>>
>>> I would eventually like to create a base4096 version when there are more
>>> emojis.
</pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>