Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

From: Mark Davis ☕️ <>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 07:57:52 +0200

To add to what Ken and Markus said: like many other identifiers, there are
a number of different categories.

   1. *Ill-formed: *"$1"
   2. *Well-formed, but not valid: *"usx". Is *syntactic* according to,
   but is not *valid* according to
   3. *Valid, but not recommended: "usca". *Corresponds to the valid
   Unicode subdivision code for California according to
   and CLDR, but is not listed in
   4. *Recommended:* "gbsct". Corresponds to the valid Unicode subdivision
   code for Scotland, and *is* listed in

 As Ken says, the terminology is a little bit in flux for term
'recommended'. TR51 is still open for comment, although we won't make any
changes that would invalidate


I would also encourage people to look at the slides on, together with the speaker notes, since some of
those slides present this very issue. I'm sure the people on this list will
have some useful comments for improvements.

Another item: with Tayfun's help, we updated If people have any feedback on other
articles that should be on that list, please let us know...



On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Markus Scherer <>

> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Philippe Verdy <>
> wrote:
>> I followed the links. Check your links, you are referencing the proposal,
>> and this contradicts the published version 4.0 of TR51. Where is stability ?
> Of course I am pointing to the proposal. The version of TR 51 under review
> adds a mechanism that didn't exist before. It's an addition, not a
> contradiction. Once it's there it will be stable.
> markus
Received on Tue Mar 28 2017 - 00:58:31 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Mar 28 2017 - 00:58:31 CDT