Multiple codes lead to the same smiley though they have different meaning

[js]

For example, :), and ^_ lead to the same smiley, so they have different meanings. Same for :D, :> and xD, which have different meanings. This actually brings confusion in conversations and I was already asked by multiple users to fix that. I myself also consider it confusing and a problem. Please see the suggested patch. Any objections?

[js]

Proposed patch

[js]

Damn wiki code. Of couse, I mean that these do the same smilie:

:), ^^ and ^_^
:D, :> and xD

If one wants them to be displayed as smilies, one uses the smilie codes, but for example xD is used when you don't want it to be displayed as a smilie.

[asterix]

these are common smileys, and very near from :) or :D. Distributing too many smileys images sounds a bad idea to me. I don't see why we would remove them or add new images.

As it's not a bugfix it's not for 0.12

[kamikazze]

Replying to js:

Damn wiki code. Of couse, I mean that these do the same smilie: {{{ :), and ^_ :D, :> and xD }}} If one wants them to be displayed as smilies, one uses the smilie codes, but for example xD is used when you don't want it to be displayed as a smilie.

Such a change would be nice - there's a different between those smileys.

[js]

It's such a small change we can do that before 0.12, especially since 0.12 was moved. (Thus I readded 0.12 - severity is trivial anyway). I don't want to add new smilies, but remove the code. The idea is that the user can see this way which smilie was typed. If one uses :D, he wants it to be displayed as a smilie, but when typed xD, the user dosen't want that. Plus there's a huge difference between :D, :> and xD!

[asterix]

when I type a smiley ( :D or xD ) I don't assume it will be rendered or not. Saying that xD is the same as :D but not to be rendered is a nonsens.

And once you say it's not the same meaning, once you say it's the same meaning but not to be rendered ...

(I removed once again 0.12 as it's not required for 0.12)

[js]

Either I don't get your point or you didn't get the problem. The problem is that there is NO way to distinguish if someone wrote :>, :D or xD etc., which have TOTAL different meaning. That means it leads to confusion in conversations. If someone with another client writes ^^, he does NOT assume it's displayed as :) for me as it's NOT the same.

[Edtech]

I try the last svn version, and I noticed that the emoticons are the same ones in several cases.

For me, and :) have a different usage and emoticons must been different. Idem for the other emoticons.

[homsn]

To me :-) and :-( and maybe ;-) and ;-( etc are ok. But who needs stuff like ^_?! Gajim even renders (B) etc as an emoticon which is crap to me.

[keiner]

I think that the way :) and both other smileys are displayed should differ. It helps understanding what your conversational partner means when he uses such a smiley.

[js]

Resetting milestone to 0.12, see #4224. Time to overthink it, Asterix!

[roidelapluie]

we should not transform to a smilie

[Merwok]

+1 for js, and more: smileys as images should be explicit. If I want to write :), I write :), and I’d like some explicit markup for the image. (Besides, +1 on removing (B) and likewise crap. :=)

[Florob]

FWIF I agree to. Those smileys don't have the same meaning. We should only convert things to a smiley when it is relatively unambiguous in meaning. E.g. Some people use (B) as a bullet point thing, if it shows a smiley this is bad. I also noticed that ^^ can sometimes be equivalent to ;) and sometimes to :) depending on context if you don't know it was ^^ but think it was :) that can really confuse you (happened multiple times to me). (BTW for those who wondered. It seems you can escape characters like ^ with a "!" in Trac)

[js]

Even worse is :D, xD and :> IMO. :D is laughing, xD is when you don't mean it serious and :> is being sarcastic. These are totally different to me.

So, pretty much everyone here agrees to apply the proposed patch?

[Florob]

Well, I think it would be at least a nice gesture to wait until Asterix is back and can bring in his arguments/opinion, but yes I think most people agree with you.

[MattJ]

...and don't forget o_O which is *not* :-O

:)

[asterix]

if we follow all you said, we need one hundred images. :) and :-) is not the same then (one has a nose) :/ and :$ is not the same, etc etc. So if you follow your meaning fully, a picture can't represent ascii chars. So disable emoticons rendering in pref window.

So I think we have 2 options:

• We agree that some are close enough to have the same image, even if it's not exactly true, most ppl won't do the difference, and for those who really care, don't use pictures
• We strictly do one image per ASCII pair.

for (B) and things like that, it's MSN smileys, It can go to a plugin when we'll use plugin system.

[js]

You clearly don't get it, Asterix. It's not about displaying :) and :-) differently, they are the same. Both mean happy. It's about rendering smilies the same which are NOT the same. Laughing and being sarcastic is NOT the same! But we render sarcastic as laughing. Your options are extremes and neither is a valid option. The solution is somewhere in the middle: Render smilies the same which are really the same. If you have a smilie set that misses the :( smilie icon, would you render it like :) just because it's missing :(? You clearly wouldn't. But that's exactly what we do atm. We render being sarcastic as laughing because we're missing the smilie. So we shouldn't render it at all.

So, can I _PLEASE_ commit that now? You delayed that patch long enough IMO, it's clear that everyone disagrees with rendering smilies the same which are not the same.

For the MSN smilies: I think we should only render them when we're using MSN transport. Same for the ICQ smilies (though they use more sane codes).

@MattJ: I agree, rolling eyes and being astonished are two completely different things.

[asterix]

as everybody seems to agree with removing some smileys, do that, but I think the correct fix is not to remove it, but add other icons.

note: I don't appreciate attacks, there are less aggressive way to talk.

[js]

Sorry, but I got a bit upset that this has been delayed for so long for no apparent reason.

For more smilies: I think we should get now ones anyway, they are not so consistent atm. Would be cool to have some in the same style as the moods. The Pidgin smilies are also rather nice.

And we should have a new smilie selector menu then. One that shows only common ones and then has an expander or something like that for the rest.

[js]

(In [10302]) Fix #4087.

[Merwok]

Would anyone else like to choose whether pictures or characters are sent? I’d like to be able to choose between :) and a picture (if I understand correctly, at present they are converted on the receiver end).

(By the way, I feel there *is* a difference between :) and :-): the second one is more emphazised, the first lightier, but I don’t know if my impressions are shared.)

[asterix]

we don't send a picture, we only send chars so you (sender) can't choose if the recipient will show chars or a picture.