Re: Non-RGI sequences are not emoji? (was: Re: Unifying E_Modifier and Extend in UAX 29 (i.e. the necessity of GB10))

On January 5, Mark Davis wrote: Doug, I modified my working draft, at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EuNjbs0XrBwqlvCJxra44o3EVrwdBJUWsPf8Ec1fWKY If that looks ok, I'll submit. Sorry for the delay. The text substitutions look fine. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

Re: Non-RGI sequences are not emoji? (was: Re: Unifying E_Modifier and Extend in UAX 29 (i.e. the necessity of GB10))

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 ☕️ wrote: > Thanks for your comments;

Re: Non-RGI sequences are not emoji? (was: Re: Unifying E_Modifier and Extend in UAX 29 (i.e. the necessity of GB10))

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

Non-RGI sequences are not emoji? (was: Re: Unifying E_Modifier and Extend in UAX 29 (i.e. the necessity of GB10))

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