Why aren't the emoji modifiers GCB=Extend?

[Mark Davis ☕️]

BTW, Karl, one of our TODOs is to look at the breaking behavior of the
emoji sequences....


Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>

*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Karl Williamson <public at khwilliamson.com>
wrote:

> On 06/20/2015 03:02 AM, Mark Davis [image: ☕]️ wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Ken Whistler <kenwhistler at att.net
>> <mailto:kenwhistler at att.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     This results from the fact that the fallback behavior for the
>>     modifiers is
>>     simply as independent pictographic blorts, i.e. the color swatch
>> images.
>>     That is also related to why they are treated as gc=Sk symbol
>> modifiers,
>>     rather than as combining marks or format characters.
>>
>>     If you *support* emoji modifier sequences, then yes, you should treat
>>     them as single grapheme clusters for editing -- but their behavior is
>>     more akin then to ligatures or conjuncts than to combining character
>>     sequences. You need additional, specific
>>     knowledge about these sequences -- it doesn't just fall out from a
>>     *default* implementation of UAX #29 rules for grapheme clusters.
>>
>>
>> ​Looks like this would be a good FAQ addition...​
>>
>
> Yes please
>
>
>>
>>
>> Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>
>> /
>> /
>> /— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —/
>> //////
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20150622/87f2320b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: emoji_u2615.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2776 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20150622/87f2320b/attachment.png>