Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final
joan at montane.cat
Tue Mar 28 04:56:02 CDT 2017
2017-03-28 7:57 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at macchiato.com>:
> To add to what Ken and Markus said: like many other identifiers, there are
> a number of different categories.
> 1. *Ill-formed: *"$1"
> 2. *Well-formed, but not valid: *"usx". Is *syntactic* according to
> but is not *valid* according to http://unicode.org/reports/tr5
> 3. *Valid, but not recommended: "usca". *Corresponds to the valid
> Unicode subdivision code for California according to
> and CLDR, but is not listed in http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/.
> 4. *Recommended:* "gbsct". Corresponds to the valid Unicode
> subdivision code for Scotland, and *is* listed in
> As Ken says, the terminology is a little bit in flux for term
> 'recommended'. TR51 is still open for comment, although we won't make any
> changes that would invalidate http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/.
Just two remarks
1st one: point 4 (Unicode subdivision codes listed in emoji Unicode site)
arises something like chicken-egg problem. Vendors don't easily add new
subdivision-flags (because they aren't recommended), and Unicode doesn't
recommend new subdivision flags (because they aren't supported by vendors).
2n one: What about "Adopt a Character" (AKA "Adopt an emoji"). Will be
valid, but not recommended, Unicode subdivisions codes eligible? For
instances, say, could someone adopt California, Texas, Pomerania, or
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode