Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Ken's observation "…approximately backwards…" is exactly right, and that's
the same reason why Markus suggested something along the lines of
"interoperable".

I don't think we've come up with a pithy category name yet, but I tried
different wording on the slides on http://unicode.org/emoji/. See what you
think, Doug.

Mark

Mark

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org> wrote:

> Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> That seems a fair analysis.
>
> Another way of putting this is that marking a particular subset of valid
> sequences as "recommended" is one thing, while listing sequences in a
> table with a column "Standard sequence?", with some sequences marked
> "Yes" and others marked "No," is something else.
>
> Equivalently, characterizing a group of valid sequences as "Valid, but
> not recommended" is something else.
>
> If the goal is to tell users that three of the sequences are especially
> likely to be supported, or to tell vendors that they should prioritize
> support for these three, then "recommended" and "additional," used as a
> pair, would be more appropriate.
>
> If the goal is to tell users "we don't want you to use the other 5100
> sequences" and to tell vendors "we don't want you to offer support for
> them," then the existing wording is fine.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>
Received on Fri Mar 31 2017 - 05:04:08 CDT