Doug, I modified my working draft, at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EuNjbs0XrBwqlvCJxra44o3EVrwdBJUWsPf8Ec1fWKY
If that looks ok, I'll submit. Thanks again for your comments. Mark Mark On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ <m...@macchiato.com> wrote: > Thanks for your comments; you raise an excellent issue. There are valid > sequences that are not RGI; a vendor can support additional emoji sequences > (in particular, flags). So the wording in the doc isn't correct. > > It should do something like replace the use of "testing for RGI" by > "testing for validity". The key areas involved in that are checking for the > valid base+modifier combinations, valid RI pairs, and TAG sequences. The > latter two involve testing based on the information applied in the > appendix, while the valid base+modifiers are more regular and can be tested > based on properties. > > > Mark > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode < > unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > >> Mark Davis wrote: >> >> BTW, relevant to this discussion is a proposal filed >>> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17434-emoji-rejex-uts51-def.pdf (The >>> date is wrong, should be 2017-12-22) >>> >> >> The phrase "emoji regex" had caused me to ignore this document, but I >> took a look based on this thread. It says "we still depend on the RGI test >> to filter the set of emoji sequences" and proposes that the EBNF in UTS #51 >> be simplified on the basis that only RGI sequences will pass the "possible >> emoji" test anyway. >> >> Thus it is true, as some people have said (i.e. in L2/17‐382), that >> non-RGI sequences do not actually count as emoji, and therefore there is no >> way — not merely no "recommended" way — to represent the flags of entities >> such as Catalonia and Brittany. >> >> In 2016 I had asked for the emoji tag sequence mechanism for flags to be >> available for all CLDR subdivisions, not just three, with the understanding >> that the vast majority would not be supported by vendor glyphs. II t is >> unfortunate that, while the conciliatory name "recommended" was adopted for >> the three, the intent of "exclusively permitted" was retained. >> >> -- >> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org >> >> >
