Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Asmus Freytag asmusf at ix.netcom.com
Wed Mar 29 17:31:41 CDT 2017

On 3/29/2017 2:07 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Ken Whistler wrote:
>> *But*, the ones who do have flags on their phones don't want to be in
>> the situation where the iPhone has a flag of Scotland which then shows
>> up as a flag tofu on an Android phone, but an Android phone has a flag
>> of Texas which then shows up as a flag tofu on on iPhone, etc., etc.
>> That way leads to customer complaint madness, with 1000's (hundreds of
>> 1000's?) of complaints: "My phone is screwed up, fix it!"
> Doesn't this same problem exist for other emoji, or non-emoji, that are
> supported on some phones but not others? What's the customer service
> resolution in those cases?

Sure, let them go form a consortium and agree on which ones are in the 
recommended set. But why form a new consortium if you have one already 
where they are all members?

Agreeing on recommended level of support in the sense of "best practice" 
is something that is done for many of the specifications, for example 
some of the algorithms.

A useful guide in evaluating whether it's appropriate to "recommend" 
something is to treat it as if it was mandatory, but with a costly 
override option: if you decide to go against the recommendation you'd 
better have a really solid reason.

Recommending to vendors to support a minimal set is one thing. 
Recommending to users to only use sequences from that set / or vendors 
to not extend coverage beyond the minimum is something else. Both use 
the word "recommendation" but the flavor is rather different (which 
becomes more obvious when you re-phrase as I suggested).

That seems to be the source of the disconnect.


More information about the Unicode mailing list