WJGO >>Yet if QID emoji are implemented by Unicode Inc. without also
being implemented by ISO/IEC 10646 then that could lead to future
problems, ...
Peter Constable wrote as follows.
> Neither Unicode Inc. or ISO/IEC 10646 would _implement_ QID emoji.
That is correct. I should have made clear that I was referring to the
specification for QID emoji rather than QID emoji. How quite to express
precisely and concisely the formal acceptance of the specification by
Unicode Inc. to become a published Unicode Inc. document giving the
go-ahead for implementation by anyone (not just software vendors) is
somewhat difficult without using the word 'implement'.
Peter within his post also wrote as follows.
> The PRI doc mentions the possibility of a registry for QID sequences;
> a key benefit of a registry is that it may mitigate against these
> non-interop risks. But the current proposal does not in fact provide
> any mitigations for these issues other than the possibility that a QID
> sequence might be at some point become an RGI sequence.
I put forward on Friday 8 November 2019 a suggestion that might help
towards solving the problem.
https://www.unicode.org/review/pri408/
William Overington
Tuesday 12 November 2019
Received on Tue Nov 12 2019 - 10:03:58 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Nov 12 2019 - 10:03:58 CST