2017-03-28 7:57 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ <mark_at_macchiato.com>:
> 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
> <http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#def_emoji_tag_sequence>,
> but is not *valid* according to http://unicode.org/reports/tr5
> 1/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences
> <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
> <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/
> <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/.
>
Just two remarks
1st one: point 4 (Unicode subdivision codes listed in emoji Unicode site)
arises something like chicken-egg problem. Vendors don't easily add new
subdivision-flags (because they aren't recommended), and Unicode doesn't
recommend new subdivision flags (because they aren't supported by vendors).
2n one: What about "Adopt a Character" (AKA "Adopt an emoji"). Will be
valid, but not recommended, Unicode subdivisions codes eligible? For
instances, say, could someone adopt California, Texas, Pomerania, or
Catalonia flags?
Regards,
Joan Montané
Received on Tue Mar 28 2017 - 04:56:24 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Mar 28 2017 - 04:56:24 CDT