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

From: Doug Ewell via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 20:57:13 -0700

On January 5, Mark Davis wrote:

> Doug, I modified my working draft, at
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EuNjbs0XrBwqlvCJxra44o3EVrwdBJUWsPf8Ec1fWKY
>
> If that looks ok, I'll submit.

Sorry for the delay. The text substitutions look fine.

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

Received on Mon Jan 15 2018 - 21:57:37 CST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: James Kass via Unicode: "Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?"
Previous message: Eric Muller via Unicode: "0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?"
In reply to: Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode: "Re: Non-RGI sequences are not emoji? (was: Re: Unifying E_Modifier and Extend in UAX 29 (i.e. the necessity of GB10))"

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 : Mon Jan 15 2018 - 21:57:38 CST