Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode

Leo Broukhis leob at
Thu Jul 2 15:58:22 CDT 2015

What I don't like about PRI #399 is its proposing to use
default-ignorable characters. On a non-vexillology-aware platform, I'd
like to see something informative, albeit not resembling a flag, but
indicative of the intention to display a flag, like RIS can be, as
opposed to nondescript white flags.


On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Ken Whistler <kenwhistler at> wrote:
> On 7/2/2015 12:33 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
>> along with regional supplementary symbols, then sequences
>> <RIS><RIS><RID><RSS>*<RIS> can be parsed unambiguously as ISO 3166-2,
>> whereas <RIS><RSS>+<RIS> can be parsed as a named sequence signifying
>> a flag of a non-governmental  entity (or <RIS><RSS><RIS> - as ISO
>> 3166-1 alpha 3, and longer sequences as non-governmental).
> The point of switching to the TAG characters for an extension
> mechanism beyond what the RIS pairs can handle is that
> TAG characters for letters *and* digits *and* dash already exist
> and do not have to be encoded yet again before they could be used.
> Any proposal that depends on getting agreement to encode and
> publish some *further* set of meta-characters for representing
> letters, digits, and ASCII punctuation marks would at this point
> push out any possible solution to the time frame of Unicode 10.0
> (June, 2017). And even that would depend on first coming to
> agreement that *more* sets of meta-characters for dealing with
> the same kind of function that TAG characters could already serve
> would be a good idea. The potential for significant disagreement could
> push such a solution out even further. Remember that any
> solution involving encoding more characters with "funny behavior"
> would need not only to gain consensus in the UTC, but would
> also have to pass muster in SC2 and pass two formal ballots by
> the national bodies.
> You could create an equivalent proposal to what you are suggesting
> above by simply substituting <TAG-DASH> and <TAG-[0..9]> for your
> RID and RSS above -- and you could do it *now*, instead of in 2017.
> But once we look to TAG characters for an extension mechanism,
> why mess with the existing RIS pair syntax and break the existing
> implementations using them? Hence, the direction taken in
> PRI #399, which suggests an extension syntax based entirely on
> the TAG characters.
> --Ken

More information about the Unicode mailing list