Non-RGI sequences are not emoji? (was: Re: Unifying E_Modifier and Extend in UAX 29 (i.e. the necessity of GB10))

Doug Ewell via Unicode unicode at
Tue Jan 2 14:55:47 CST 2018

Mark Davis wrote:

> BTW, relevant to this discussion is a proposal filed
> (The
> date is wrong, should be 2017-12-22)

The phrase "emoji regex" had caused me to ignore this document, but I 
took a look based on this thread. It says "we still depend on the RGI 
test to filter the set of emoji sequences" and proposes that the EBNF in 
UTS #51 be simplified on the basis that only RGI sequences will pass the 
"possible emoji" test anyway.

Thus it is true, as some people have said (i.e. in L2/17‐382), that 
non-RGI sequences do not actually count as emoji, and therefore there is 
no way — not merely no "recommended" way — to represent the flags of 
entities such as Catalonia and Brittany.

In 2016 I had asked for the emoji tag sequence mechanism for flags to be 
available for all CLDR subdivisions, not just three, with the 
understanding that the vast majority would not be supported by vendor 
glyphs. II t is unfortunate that, while the conciliatory name 
"recommended" was adopted for the three, the intent of "exclusively 
permitted" was retained.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US |

More information about the Unicode mailing list