Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

I note this in TR32
*3.2 Unicode Locale Identifier
<http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/index.html#Unicode_locale_identifier>*

EBNF
ABNF

unicode_locale_id
<http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/index.html#unicode_locale_id> =
unicode_language_id
  (transformed_extensions
  unicode_locale_extensions?
| unicode_locale_extensions?
  transformed_extensions?) ; = unicode_language_id
  ([trasformed_extensions
  [unicode_locale_extensions]]
/ [unicode_locale_extensions
  [transformed_extensions]])

* first there's a typo in the ABNF syntax ("trasformed")
* the syntax is not strictly equivalent, or the ABNF is unnecessarily not
context-free

It should better be:

EBNF
ABNF

unicode_locale_id
<http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/index.html#unicode_locale_id> =
unicode_language_id
 (transformed_extensions
  unicode_locale_extensions?
| unicode_locale_extensions
  transformed_extensions?)?; = unicode_language_id
 [transformed_extensions
  [unicode_locale_extensions]
/ unicode_locale_extensions
  [transformed_extensions]]

2017-03-28 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joan Montané <joan_at_montane.cat>:

>
>
> 2017-03-28 7:57 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ <mark_at_macchiato.com>:
>
>> To add to what Ken and Markus said: like many other identifiers, there
>> are a number of different categories.
>>
>> 1. *Ill-formed: *"$1"
>> 2. *Well-formed, but not valid: *"usx". Is *syntactic* according to
>> http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#def_emoji_tag_sequence
>> <http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#def_emoji_tag_sequence>,
>> but is not *valid* according to http://unicode.org/reports/tr5
>> 1/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences
>> <http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences>
>> .
>> 3. *Valid, but not recommended: "usca". *Corresponds to the valid
>> Unicode subdivision code for California according to
>> http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-ta
>> g-sequences
>> <http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences>
>> and CLDR, but is not listed in http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/.
>> 4. *Recommended:* "gbsct". Corresponds to the valid Unicode
>> subdivision code for Scotland, and *is* listed in
>> http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/
>> <http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/>.
>>
>> As Ken says, the terminology is a little bit in flux for term
>> 'recommended'. TR51 is still open for comment, although we won't make any
>> changes that would invalidate http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/.
>>
>
> Just two remarks
>
> 1st one: point 4 (Unicode subdivision codes listed in emoji Unicode site)
> arises something like chicken-egg problem. Vendors don't easily add new
> subdivision-flags (because they aren't recommended), and Unicode doesn't
> recommend new subdivision flags (because they aren't supported by vendors).
>
> 2n one: What about "Adopt a Character" (AKA "Adopt an emoji"). Will be
> valid, but not recommended, Unicode subdivisions codes eligible? For
> instances, say, could someone adopt California, Texas, Pomerania, or
> Catalonia flags?
>
>
> Regards,
> Joan Montané
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 28 2017 - 05:37:20 CDT