From: Mark Davis (mark.edward.davis@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Dec 24 2008 - 12:06:28 CST
Let me try to trace this out in more detail.
The UTC considered the 676 flag approach in previous meetings, and decided
that we were better off just encoding the emoji flags where there was an
explicit need for compatibility, thus only a small number.
We had an ad hoc emoji group meeting on Monday to consider some of the
feedback that we've received. In the emoji group, we want to prepare as good
a proposal as we can before the UTC meeting, and consider the feedback that
we've received so far in helping to do that. Some people were making the
case for having more flag symbols. To try to accomodate that, and yet be
consistent with the UTC direction, we tentatively agreed to recommend to the
UTC still only encoding the symbols we need, but within a large block to
allow for additional flag symbols to allow for future expansion if needed.
All of this, of course, is just proposal at this point; no firm decisions
have been made.
As far as the proposal for: "Interpreting (and encoding) these 10 symbols as
common language/locale symbols, rather than as national flags", I personally
don't know whether makes a difference one way or another. If anything, the
number of possible languages and/or locales is much larger than the number
of flags... My feeling is that we'd be best just encoding these 10 flag
symbols, recognizing that it is purely for compatibility's sake, and be done
with it.
Mark
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 21:23, Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>wrote:
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On
> Behalf Of Kenneth Whistler
>
> >> What we concluded is that we would propose that the characters
> >> be allocated in a
> >> block that had enough positions for the non-private use country codes
> >> (that is 676
> >> combinations - AA, ZZ, QM..QZ, XA..XZ).
> >
> > ... I personally part
> > company with the symbols subcommittee and the UTC on this
> > suggested outcome, which I think is just nuts.
>
> I'm with Ken on this (though I don't specifically recall either UTC or the
> Symbols s/c making any decision to do this).
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST