From: Kent Karlsson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 06:01:27 CST
I think it would be best to handle the flags as logos. After all, they
have much more in common with logos than with characters (at least IMO).
Note also that flags often have requirements on exact proportions/
placements, and exact colours (at least in certain contexts). Much
like a logo...
Den 2009-01-11 11.42, skrev "Christopher Fynn" <email@example.com>:
> A block of 256 characters would be sufficient to handle flags of all
> countries with existing ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 codes ~ with enough space
> left over for the flags of organizations such as the UN, the IRC, the
> EC and a few others.
> - Chris
> Michael Everson wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2009, at 01:55, Michael D'Errico wrote:
>>> Michael Everson wrote:
>>>> Do NOT think that encoding even ONE of the ten flags proposed will
>>>> not lead to a huge number of requests for additional characters. And
>>>> do NOT think that those requests will not be reasonable.
>>> Flags are actually a perfect example that could use the method I've been
>>> talking about. If you had FLAG_A through FLAG_Z you could specify any
>>> and all country flags with two code points, e.g. FLAG_C FLAG_A for the
>>> Canadian flag.
>> I would not favour such a scheme. Karl's suggestion of encoding a block
>> of two-letter codes makes more sense. (FLAG AA to FLAG ZZ.)
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "emoji4unicode" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 06:04:09 CST