Unqualified vs. minimally-qualified emoji
matthias.reitinger at gmx.de
Wed Apr 6 20:33:08 CDT 2022
UTS #51  defines the following terms:
ED-17a. qualified emoji character — An emoji character in a string that (a) has
default emoji presentation or (b) is the first character in an emoji modifier
sequence or (c) is not a default emoji presentation character, but is the first
character in an emoji presentation sequence.
ED-18. fully-qualified emoji — A qualified emoji character, or an emoji
sequence in which each emoji character is qualified.
ED-18a. minimally-qualified emoji — An emoji sequence in which the first
character is qualified but the sequence is not fully qualified.
ED-19. unqualified emoji — An emoji that is neither fully-qualified nor
With this definitions I would expect the code point sequence
1F441 FE0F 200D 1F5E8
(EYE, VARIATION SELECTOR-16, ZERO WIDTH JOINER, LEFT SPEECH BUBBLE)
to be a minimally-qualified emoji:
* It is an emoji sequence (ED-17), specifically an emoji zwj sequence (ED-16).
* The first character is qualified (ED-17a (c)), because it is the first
character in an emoji presentation sequence (ED-9a).
* The sequence is not fully qualified (ED-18), because the second emoji
character U+1F5E8 is not qualified (it is not a default emoji presentation
character, and is not part of an emoji presentation sequence).
However, emoji-test.txt  lists this sequence as "unqualified".
Can someone please explain why? Did I misinterpret the definitions, or is this
an error in the emoji-test.txt file?
More information about the Unicode