meaningful and meaningless FE0E
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Sun Jun 29 11:24:50 CDT 2014
But today, where emoji are parsed correctly, that's not a couple of
pointless empty squares but a POP followed by an ignored FE0E, which is
exactly my expectations accordingly with today standards.
If tomorrow this would change form some reason, it's not a problem of today
parsers and unless you intentionally create that sequence for your own
purposes, no keyboard would automatically put such sequence in a text field
since such sequence as it is is meaningless for today standards.
All good then, I've got my parser right :-)
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Richard Wordingham <
richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:33:17 -0700
> Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am trying to understand the expected behavior when there an
> > "unexpected VS15" after emoji that have not been defined, accordingly
> > with this file http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamesList.txt,
> > as VS15 sensitive.
> Variation selectors are 'default ignorable' - if an implementation
> does not understand it, it should ignore it. In particular,
> Section 16.4 Version 6.3.0 of the Unicode Standard says that if the
> application does not understand the combination of base character and
> variation selector the variation selector should normally be ignored.
> This does not preclude the possibility that the renderer only has
> special modes, in all of which unknown variation selectors are displayed
> as flashing red question marks.
> > My take on FE0E is that all emoji that are sensible to this variant,
> > have an "emojified" counter part that should be used when followed by
> > FE0F and vice-versa a textual part when followed by FE0E, but all
> > other emoji should not consider such variant at all since there's no
> > textual counter part to represent, let's say, a 1F21A pile-of-poo
> > "\ud83d\udca9\ufe0e"
> > Can anyone please confirm my expectations are correct so that above
> > regardless, followed by FE0E variant that will be simply ignored and
> > actually no device/OS/render/viewer/browser would ever create such
> > sequence so it's actually a non problem, this one I am trying to
> > solve?
> There was nothing to stop me putting the sequence "︎" <U+1F4A9 PILE
> OF POO, U+FE0E VARIATION SELECTOR-15> in my reply. Moreover, there is
> nothing to stop the sequence becoming defined at some time in the
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode at unicode.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode