ZWJ sequences in UTR #51 v4

Marcel Schneider charupdate at
Sat Aug 13 03:32:56 CDT 2016

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 17:37:04 +1000, "zelpa"  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Marcel Schneider  wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 17:44:10 +1000, zelpa wrote:
> > >
> > > Some of the ZWJ sequences in the latest revision seem sort of arbitrary, why is
> > > male health worker Man + Staff of Asclepius instead of introducing a Doctor emoji
> > > and simply using the female of male modifiers? The current proposition also
> > > doesn't seem to allow for a gender-neutral doctor(?)
> >
> > As far as I know, the category “health worker” is more general than “doctor”,
> > as it includes many professionals who are not physicians.
> > 
> > Not surprisingly, the Consortiumʼs choice of encoding the MALE HEALTH WORKER emoji
> > as a MAN associated with a STAFF OF AESCULAPIUS seems to me plain accurate.
> > 
> > Marcel
> MALE HEALTH WORKER was just an example, any of the ZWJ sequences that follow 
> the PROFESSION ZWJ GENDER can be left gender neutral simply by leaving out the 
> gender(At least in theory, god knows what vendors would actually choose to 
> show) the sequences that follow the pattern PERSON ZWJ OBJECT can only be male 
> or female in the current proposition. Of course health worker is more general 
> than doctor, shouldn't have used that word. My point was it's currently not 
> possible to show a gender-neutral health worker, student, farmer, teacher, 
> judge, cook, mechanic, factory worker, office worker, scientist, etc. using 
> the current proposition. Kind of seems backwards to force people to either 
> pick female or male when using these sequences.
I see, you are right. Profession emoji should be available gender neutral 
throughout. One workaround while waiting for an accurate encoding could be 
to quickly define a WOMAN ZWJ MAN ZWJ OBJECT pattern to be rendered with a 
neutral emoji akin to the intended profession.

More information about the Unicode mailing list