Unifying E_Modifier and Extend in UAX 29 (i.e. the necessity of GB10)

[Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode]

> Or is bringing it up here good enough?

You should submit a proposal, which you can do at
https://www.unicode.org/reporting.html. It doesn't have to be much more
than what you put in email.

(A reminder for everyone here: This is simply a discussion list, and has no
effect whatsoever unless someone submits a proposal for the UTC.)

Mark

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Manish Goregaokar <manish at mozilla.com>
wrote:

> > Note: we are already planning to get rid of the GAZ/EBG distinction (
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-32.html#GB10) in any event.
>
>
> This is great! I hadn't noticed this when I last saw that draft (I was
> focusing on the Virama stuff). Good to know!
>
>
> > Instead, we'd add one line to
> *Extend <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-32.html#Extend>:*
>
> Yeah, this is essentially what I was hoping we could do.
>
> Is there any way to formally propose this? Or is bringing it up here good
> enough?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Manish
>
> On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 9:17 PM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode <
> unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>
>> This is an interesting suggestion, Manish.
>>
>> <non-emoji-base, skin tone modifier> is a degenerate case, so if we
>> following your suggestion we also could drop E_Base and E_Modifier, and
>> rule GB10.
>>
>> Instead, we'd add one line to *Extend
>> <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-32.html#Extend>:*
>>
>> OLD
>> Grapheme_Extend = Yes
>> *and not* GCB = Virama
>>
>> NEW
>> Grapheme_Extend = Yes, or
>> Emoji characters listed as Emoji_Modifier=Yes in emoji-data.txt. See [
>> UTS51 <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr41/tr41-21.html#UTS51>].
>> *and not* GCB = Virama
>>
>> Note: we are already planning to get rid of the GAZ/EBG distinction (
>> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-32.html#GB10) in any event.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode <
>> unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 13:24:29 +0530
>>> Manish Goregaokar via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > <random non-emoji, skin tone modifier> sounds very much like a
>>> > degenerate case to me.
>>>
>>> Generally yes, but I'm not sure that they'd be inappropriate for
>>> Egyptian hieroglyphs showing human beings.  The choice of determinative
>>> can convey unpronounceable semantic information, though I'm not sure
>>> that that can be as sensitive as skin colour.  However, in such a case
>>> it would also be appropriate to give a skin tone modifier the property
>>> Extend.
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20180102/abdf45ec/attachment.html>