Why aren't the emoji modifiers GCB=Extend?

From: Karl Williamson <public_at_khwilliamson.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:51:20 -0600

Someone writing code using Unicode 8 found that the FITZPATRICK
modifiers are considered separate graphemes from what they modify. This
is surprising, and seems contrary to not only the concept of a grapheme
cluster, but the spirit of tr51 2.2.3 "A supported emoji modifier
sequence should be treated as a single grapheme cluster for editing
purposes"
Received on Fri Jun 19 2015 - 15:53:59 CDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Ken Whistler: "Re: trying to understand the relationship between the Version 1 Hangul syllables and the later versions'"
Previous message: Karl Williamson: "trying to understand the relationship between the Version 1 Hangul syllables and the later versions'"
Next in thread: Ken Whistler: "Re: Why aren't the emoji modifiers GCB=Extend?"
Reply: Ken Whistler: "Re: Why aren't the emoji modifiers GCB=Extend?"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jun 19 2015 - 15:53:59 CDT