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 http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#def_emoji_tag_sequence, but is not *valid* according to http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences . 3. *Valid, but not recommended: "usca". *Corresponds to the valid Unicode subdivision code for California according to http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences 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 http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/. 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/. ==== I would also encourage people to look at the slides on http://unicode.org/emoji/, together with the speaker notes, since some of those slides present this very issue. I'm sure the people on this list will have some useful comments for improvements. Another item: with Tayfun's help, we updated http://unicode.org/press/emoji.html. If people have any feedback on other articles that should be on that list, please let us know... Mark Mark On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Markus Scherer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Philippe Verdy <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I followed the links. Check your links, you are referencing the proposal, >> and this contradicts the published version 4.0 of TR51. Where is stability ? >> > > Of course I am pointing to the proposal. The version of TR 51 under review > adds a mechanism that didn't exist before. It's an addition, not a > contradiction. Once it's there it will be stable. > markus >
