Unqualified vs. minimally-qualified emoji

[Markus Scherer]

Dear Matthias,

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 10:02 PM Matthias Reitinger via Unicode <
unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:

> ...
>
> 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:
>
> ...
>
> However, emoji-test.txt [2] 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?
>

Did you get an answer to your question?

If not, then you could try to submit a bug report:
https://www.unicode.org/reporting.html "Report Error in Publication/Data"

Best regards,
markus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20220718/5ad51978/attachment.htm>