doug at ewellic.org
Tue May 19 10:19:09 CDT 2015
Re: Tag characters
Mark Davis ⛾ <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:
> A more concrete proposal will be in a PRI to be issued soon, and
> people will have a chance to comment more then.
I'll hold off on most other questions until the PRI appears.
> The principal reason for 3 digit codes is because that is the
> mechanism used by BCP47 in case ISO screws up codes (as they did for
Hopefully the MA will adhere to the new 50-year limit. The example given
in the proposal talked about trans-national flags.
> The syntax does not need to follow the 3166 syntax - the codes
> correspond but are not the same anyway. So we didn't see the necessity
> for the hyphen, syntactically.
Well, the codes are the same, but you're defining a new syntax, so you
get to remove the hyphen if you want to. But again, the proposal didn't
> There is a difference between EU and UN; the former is in BCP47.
I didn't know that was relevant to flag tagging.
> Just because a code is valid doesn't mean that there is a flag
> associated with it.
Of course not. I'd also not expect CLDR or Unicode or even vendors to
keep track of every state and territory flag around the world. Vendors
will support some subset of flags of their choice, just as they
currently do, and that's consistent with existing Unicode principles
about not having to display every possible character.
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO
More information about the Unicode