Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

[Mark Davis ☕️]

Thanks

Mark

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> I just filed the bug in the CLDR contact form.
>
> 2017-03-28 12:49 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at macchiato.com>:
>
>> ​Thanks. Probably best as:
>>
>> unicode_locale_id = unicode_language_id
>>                     ( transformed_extensions unicode_locale_extensions?
>>                     | unicode_locale_extensions transformed_extensions?
>> )? ;​
>>
>> even clearer would be two steps:
>>
>> unicode_locale_id = unicode_language_id extensions? ;
>>
>> extensions        = transformed_extensions unicode_locale_extensions?
>>                   | unicode_locale_extensions transformed_extensions? ;
>>
>> ​Could you file a CLDR ticket on this?
>>
>> ​
>> Mark
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I note this in TR32
>>> *3.2 Unicode Locale Identifier
>>> <http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/index.html#Unicode_locale_identifier>*
>>>
>>> EBNF
>>> ABNF
>>>
>>> unicode_locale_id
>>> <http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/index.html#unicode_locale_id> =
>>> unicode_language_id
>>>   (transformed_extensions
>>>   unicode_locale_extensions?
>>> | unicode_locale_extensions?
>>>   transformed_extensions?) ; = unicode_language_id
>>>   ([trasformed_extensions
>>>   [unicode_locale_extensions]]
>>> / [unicode_locale_extensions
>>>   [transformed_extensions]])
>>>
>>> * first there's a typo in the ABNF syntax ("trasformed")
>>> * the syntax is not strictly equivalent, or the ABNF is unnecessarily
>>> not context-free
>>>
>>> It should better be:
>>>
>>> EBNF
>>> ABNF
>>>
>>> unicode_locale_id
>>> <http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/index.html#unicode_locale_id> =
>>> unicode_language_id
>>>  (transformed_extensions
>>>   unicode_locale_extensions?
>>> | unicode_locale_extensions
>>>   transformed_extensions?)?; = unicode_language_id
>>>  [transformed_extensions
>>>   [unicode_locale_extensions]
>>> / unicode_locale_extensions
>>>   [transformed_extensions]]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-03-28 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joan Montané <joan at montane.cat>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2017-03-28 7:57 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at macchiato.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> To add to what Ken and Markus said: like many other identifiers, there
>>>>> are a number of different categories.
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. *Ill-formed: *"$1"
>>>>>    2. *Well-formed, but not valid: *"usx". Is *syntactic* according
>>>>>    to http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#def_emoji_tag_
>>>>>    sequence, but is not *valid* according to
>>>>>    http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-ta
>>>>>    g-sequences
>>>>>    <http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences>
>>>>>    .
>>>>>    3. *Valid, but not recommended: "usca". *Corresponds to the valid
>>>>>    Unicode subdivision code for California according to
>>>>>    http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-ta
>>>>>    g-sequences
>>>>>    <http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences>
>>>>>    and CLDR, but is not listed in http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/
>>>>>    .
>>>>>    4. *Recommended:* "gbsct". Corresponds to the valid Unicode
>>>>>    subdivision code for Scotland, and *is* listed in
>>>>>    http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/
>>>>>    <http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/>.
>>>>>
>>>>>  As Ken says, the terminology is a little bit in flux for term
>>>>> 'recommended'. TR51 is still open for comment, although we won't make any
>>>>> changes that would invalidate http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just two remarks
>>>>
>>>> 1st one: point 4 (Unicode subdivision codes listed in emoji Unicode
>>>> site) arises something like chicken-egg problem. Vendors don't easily add
>>>> new subdivision-flags (because they aren't recommended), and Unicode
>>>> doesn't recommend new subdivision flags (because they aren't supported by
>>>> vendors).
>>>>
>>>> 2n one: What about "Adopt a Character" (AKA "Adopt an emoji"). Will be
>>>> valid, but not recommended, Unicode subdivisions codes eligible? For
>>>> instances, say, could someone adopt California, Texas, Pomerania, or
>>>> Catalonia flags?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Joan Montané
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20170328/801a4573/attachment.html>