Emoji Support

  • @Aslan There is a huge difference between components we actually have an influence on (3rd party libraries such as jQuery) and environments we cannot influence such as webspaces.

    Development should not be halted because of a small few who refuse to upgrade. Your target should be the majority and the majority has moved on. Being the majority smart enough not to stick to a version that is almost 3 years end of life.

  • That's something i already considered However, the current implementation is easier when using font glyphs. But whenever i continue the development (the screens are 9 months old), i will try to use images instead

    That would be good idea. Emoji's have come a long way... It would be a good idea to reflect their current status.

  • The target is the mass and not a small few people who manage their own servers

    The mass has moved on. One need only poke around Webhostingtalk.com to discover this.

    Unless you want to pick some small, unheard of hosting comapny... The big players, thus the ones with the most customers, thus the ones affecting the larger share... Have moved forward.

  • Unless you want to pick some small, unheard of hosting comapny... The big players, thus the ones with the most customers, thus the ones affecting the larger share... Have moved forward.


    From my own knowledge i can tell, that you are wrong. And i'm working for one of the largest hosting companies in europe.

  • Unless you want to pick some small, unheard of hosting comapny... The big players, thus the ones with the most customers, thus the ones affecting the larger share... Have moved forward.

    At the time we made the decision for WCF 2.1, MySQL 5.5 was not yet available on the majority of webhosting companies, therefore we had to stick with 5.1. We're evaluating possible version requirements with every major release and therefore this will take place during the development of WCF 2.2 again.

    Please keep in mind that we never make bets on the future, we plan for what is reliably available, not what will be potentially available at the time the final version is out, because … well, plans can change, right? Personally I would love to have MySQL 5.6 or comparable which would offer InnoDB w/ FULLTEXT support, but it doesn't look like we can rely on this considering that both Debian 8 and Ubuntu 14.04 LTS are still on MySQL 5.5.

  • Unless you want to pick some small, unheard of hosting comapny... The big players, thus the ones with the most customers, thus the ones affecting the larger share... Have moved forward.

    You are talking about International companies, but that might be different if you look at some German providers. Right now the German market is one of the big targets of Woltlab.

    Linux: Born to Frag 8) :D

  • You are talking about International companies, but that might be different if you look at some German providers. Right now the German market is one of the big targets of Woltlab.

    If you want to grow... That needs to change.

  • @Aslan Another thing you should consider is that we actually want to require the highest possible version. Having low version requirements is a real pain because it requires us to test against many, many version to ensure the software works on the lowest up to the bleeding-edge version. For example we're requiring PHP 5.3 which means we have to do testing on PHP 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6! That's not fun at all and it is a true time sink, hence we're always looking forward to raise requirements when it's sane to do.


    Right now the German market is one of the big targets of Woltlab.

    This is not true.

  • @Aslan Another thing you should consider is that we actually want to require the highest possible version. Having low version requirements is a real pain because it requires us to test against many, many version to ensure the software works on the lowest up to the bleeding-edge version. For example we're requiring PHP 5.3 which means we have to do testing on PHP 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6! That's not fun at all and it is a true time sink, hence we're always looking forward to raise requirements when it's sane to do.

    All the more reason to move forward. ;)

  • The problem with the Emojis @Aslan posted, is that they are copyrighted by Apple Inc. and may not be copied as images or whatever you want, @SoftCreatR. So either you have to display the original font on supported platforms and use free ones on unsupported platforms or you have to do the last for every platform.

    I would recommend the first method.

    I picked a random speed sheet to show a demo of what I was talking, because the original one I suggested (see post #1 and #8) which is copyright friendly... Does not have spreadsheet. The photo was only a random example.

    This is why I suggested these two which are open source (see post #1 and #8)

    Although as stated in the thread (if you read it all), you would note that while both were open source; I believe the 1st one may be the better alternative.

  • I'd be okay if I just could save the character codes into the database. I don't know if the WCF just filters them out of the content/text or if they just don't fit into my database tables. But I guess it's the WCF, as I run MySQL 5.6 (which should support emoji codes, right?)

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!