Re: Unifying E_Modifier and Extend in UAX 29 (i.e. the necessity of GB10)

This is an interesting suggestion, Manish.

<non-emoji-base, skin tone modifier> is a degenerate case, so if we
following your suggestion we also could drop E_Base and E_Modifier, and
rule GB10.

Instead, we'd add one line to *Extend
<http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-32.html#Extend>:*

OLD
Grapheme_Extend = Yes
*and not* GCB = Virama

NEW
Grapheme_Extend = Yes, or
Emoji characters listed as Emoji_Modifier=Yes in emoji-data.txt. See [UTS51
<http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr41/tr41-21.html#UTS51>].
*and not* GCB = Virama

Note: we are already planning to get rid of the GAZ/EBG distinction (
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-32.html#GB10) in any event.

Mark

On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode <
unicode_at_unicode.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 13:24:29 +0530
> Manish Goregaokar via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org> wrote:
>
> > <random non-emoji, skin tone modifier> sounds very much like a
> > degenerate case to me.
>
> Generally yes, but I'm not sure that they'd be inappropriate for
> Egyptian hieroglyphs showing human beings. The choice of determinative
> can convey unpronounceable semantic information, though I'm not sure
> that that can be as sensitive as skin colour. However, in such a case
> it would also be appropriate to give a skin tone modifier the property
> Extend.
>
> Richard.
>
Received on Mon Jan 01 2018 - 09:48:51 CST