Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final
markus.icu at gmail.com
Tue Mar 28 18:52:04 CDT 2017
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> Mark Davis wrote:
> > 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-tag-sequences
> > and CLDR, but is not listed in http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/.
> "Not recommended" is no better and no less disappointing than "not
> standard." Both phrases imply strongly that the sequence, while
> syntactically valid, should not be used.
I think the distinction between "valid" and "recommended" is confusing
terminology-wise, but it does make sense to have a distinction between
"valid" and "we know that one or more vendors are motivated to show these
sequences as single glyphs". "valid" is clearly defined, and then there is
a subset of valid that's listed in a catalog.
Just like anyone is free to string some characters together with
intervening ZWJ, but it is useful to have a catalog of sequences that are,
or are going to be, in actual use, so that it is known which sequences are
likely to work more or less the same on some set of devices.
This right now is the right time to propose better wording in the spec so
that implementers like you don't feel like they may get the rug pulled from
under them down the road.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode