Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

From: Asmus Freytag <>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:31:41 -0700

On 3/29/2017 2:07 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Ken Whistler wrote:
>> *But*, the ones who do have flags on their phones don't want to be in
>> the situation where the iPhone has a flag of Scotland which then shows
>> up as a flag tofu on an Android phone, but an Android phone has a flag
>> of Texas which then shows up as a flag tofu on on iPhone, etc., etc.
>> That way leads to customer complaint madness, with 1000's (hundreds of
>> 1000's?) of complaints: "My phone is screwed up, fix it!"
> Doesn't this same problem exist for other emoji, or non-emoji, that are
> supported on some phones but not others? What's the customer service
> resolution in those cases?

Sure, let them go form a consortium and agree on which ones are in the
recommended set. But why form a new consortium if you have one already
where they are all members?

Agreeing on recommended level of support in the sense of "best practice"
is something that is done for many of the specifications, for example
some of the algorithms.

A useful guide in evaluating whether it's appropriate to "recommend"
something is to treat it as if it was mandatory, but with a costly
override option: if you decide to go against the recommendation you'd
better have a really solid reason.

Recommending to vendors to support a minimal set is one thing.
Recommending to users to only use sequences from that set / or vendors
to not extend coverage beyond the minimum is something else. Both use
the word "recommendation" but the flavor is rather different (which
becomes more obvious when you re-phrase as I suggested).

That seems to be the source of the disconnect.

Received on Wed Mar 29 2017 - 17:32:04 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Mar 29 2017 - 17:32:05 CDT