On 29 March 2017 at 21:09, Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org> wrote:
>
>> I think "recommended" could be renamed to "(expected to be) widely
>> implemented".
>
> That's a modest improvement; it shifts from an advisory health warning
> not to use certain sequences to what it is, speculation that some
> sequences will be far better supported in the field than others.
I don't think that would work.
http://www.unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/emoji-sequences.txt explicitly
lists just the three subdivision flags for England, Scotland and Wales
under Emoji Tag Sequences, which indicates that they are special in an
undefined way that none of the thousands of other potential
subdivision flag tag sequences are. There must be a higher bar for
inclusion in the Emoji data files than simply that they are expected
to be widely implemented. Their inclusion in the Emoji data files and
the Emoji charts
(http://www.unicode.org/emoji/charts/emoji-ordering.html) must
indicate that only these three tag sequences are recommended or
sanctioned by the UTC.
(In case anyone thinks I support the current situation, let me state
that I disagree vehemently with the UTC decision to only "recommend"
these three particular subdivision flag tag sequences.)
Andrew
Received on Wed Mar 29 2017 - 16:01:35 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Mar 29 2017 - 16:01:35 CDT