Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

From: Mark Davis ☕️ <mark_at_macchiato.com>
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
   http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#def_emoji_tag_sequence,
   but is not *valid* according to
   http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences
   .
   3. *Valid, but not recommended: "usca". *Corresponds to the valid
   Unicode subdivision code for California according to
   http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences
   and CLDR, but is not listed in http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/.
   4. *Recommended:* "gbsct". Corresponds to the valid Unicode subdivision
   code for Scotland, and *is* listed in
   http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/.

 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 http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/.

====

I would also encourage people to look at the slides on
http://unicode.org/emoji/, 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
http://unicode.org/press/emoji.html. If people have any feedback on other
articles that should be on that list, please let us know...

Mark

Mark

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Markus Scherer <markus.icu_at_gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr>
> 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