Non-RGI sequences are not emoji? (was: Re: Unifying E_Modifier and Extend in UAX 29 (i.e. the necessity of GB10))

Mark Davis wrote:

> BTW, relevant to this discussion is a proposal filed
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17434-emoji-rejex-uts51-def.pdf (The
> date is wrong, should be 2017-12-22)

The phrase "emoji regex" had caused me to ignore this document, but I
took a look based on this thread. It says "we still depend on the RGI
test to filter the set of emoji sequences" and proposes that the EBNF in
UTS #51 be simplified on the basis that only RGI sequences will pass the
"possible emoji" test anyway.

Thus it is true, as some people have said (i.e. in L2/17‐382), that
non-RGI sequences do not actually count as emoji, and therefore there is
no way — not merely no "recommended" way — to represent the flags of
entities such as Catalonia and Brittany.

In 2016 I had asked for the emoji tag sequence mechanism for flags to be
available for all CLDR subdivisions, not just three, with the
understanding that the vast majority would not be supported by vendor
glyphs. II t is unfortunate that, while the conciliatory name
"recommended" was adopted for the three, the intent of "exclusively
permitted" was retained.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org