RE: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Mark Davis wrote:

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

If the list was arrived at by members of the Consortium who are vendors
responsible for implementing (or not) emoji flags, then it would be good
to state this fact rather clearly and visibly. Otherwise it really does
look like UTC doing the recommending, and the recommending-against.

> 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.

Slide 37 (speaker's notes) says:

"While at this point only three flags are on the recommended list,
implementations can provide other subdivision flags."

That's not a problem, except for being buried in speaker's notes. It
implies that all valid sequences are fine but some might not be
universally supported. That's normal for Unicode.

Slide 38 (slide and speaker's notes) says:

"Valid (but not recommended for vendors)"

Nope. That brings it right back to "Hey, vendors, Unicode recommends
that you don't support these." As I said Thursday, if that is the
intent, then don't change the wording; it's perfect as is.

The wordsmithing -- if that's all it is and not truly a warning-against
-- needs to apply primarily to the "not recommended" category. I
suggested "additional" to remove the explicit negative of "not
recommended" and "Standard? - No." In today's tread-lightly speech, "not
recommended" has the strong sense of "recommended against." Eating
poison ivy is Not Recommended.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org