Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Christoph Päper christoph.paeper at crissov.de
Wed Mar 29 16:17:58 CDT 2017

Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at macchiato.com>:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Joan Montané <joan at montane.cat> wrote:
> > 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).
>> That isn't really the case. In particular, vendors can propose adding
> additional subdivisions to the recommended list.

Awesome, "vendors" can do that. (._.m)

If I made an open-source emoji font that contained flags for all of the 5000ish
ISO 3166-2 codes that actually map to one, would I automatically be considered a
vendor? Do I need to have to pay 18000(?) dollars a year for full membership
first? (That's peanuts for multi-billion dollar companies, but unaffordable for
most individuals and many FOSS projects.)


Someone could try to push such an edit onto Emojione, Twemoji or Noto Emoji, but
something tells me none of the maintainers would accept flag PRs by random users
unless UTR/UTS#51 already recommended them.

- <https://github.com/twitter/twemoji/>
- <https://github.com/Ranks/emojione/>
- <https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-emoji>
- <https://github.com/behdad/region-flags> <-

The last one currently already has support for UK countries, US states and
Canadian provinces. Go figure.

> The UTC Consideration​s ... would come into play in assessing those proposals.
>​ So it is certainly possible for there to be (say) a flag of Texas or
> appearing in an Emoji 6.0 release this year. 

Those are desired, for sure, but so are emoji flags for Kurdistan, Confederated
States of America, Romani, Oromo, South Vietnam, Esperanto, Anarchy, Communism,
Bisexuality, Transgenderism, Sami, Pan-Africanism, Australian Aboriginals, and
many more. Of these, only the Kurdish and the Sami flag *may* be covered by
Unicode Emoji 5.0+ (possibly with multiple codes) until yet another (Tag-based)
scheme is adopted.


> Similarly, Microsoft could propose adding the ninja cat ZWJ sequences.

I still fail to see how it is a good or smart thing to have to maintain Emoji
Tag Sequences *and* Emoji ZWJ Sequences, when adopting the latter for flags
would have had at least the following advantages: 

- actually useful fallback
- application beyond ISO 3166 restrictions

More information about the Unicode mailing list