Re: Tags and custom vector glyph emoji (from Re: Tailoring the Marketplace (is: Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final))

Philippe Verdy wrote: > What you are describing is reinventing the wheel, notably basically what SVG > paths already define. Well, I am trying to express, within a tag sequence that could be included in an interoperable Unicode plain text message, the glyph information for one emoji glyph of

Re: Tags and custom vector glyph emoji (from Re: Tailoring the Marketplace (is: Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final))

2017-04-04 12:18 GMT+02:00 William_J_G Overington : > > ... developers prefer investing time in SVG renderers or existing font > technologies for OpenType (SVG fonts will come later when it will be > capable of doing the same things as OpenType, for now it does not

Tags and custom vector glyph emoji (from Re: Tailoring the Marketplace (is: Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final))

Peter Constable wrote: > William, you completely miss the point: As long as Unicode is the way to > provide emoji to consumers, their needs and desires will not be best or fully > met. Unicode as an AND gate is too many AND gates. Ah, I understand what you mean now. In my feedback of 7 March

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On 3/31/2017 3:38 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: What's wrong with "other" or "additional" in contrast to "recommended" or "preferred"? Or is the intent really to say "don't use these"? People coming from the IETF background (that is, anyone familiar with how

RE: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Peter Constable wrote: > Would "are not very likely to be well-supported in common platforms or > applications" work? No, I think it should be even longer, maybe a paragraph or two, because the concept of "A-list" versus "everything else" is just too complex and unfamiliar to express concisely.

RE: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Mark Davis wrote: > Ken's observation "…approximately backwards…" is exactly right, and > that's the same reason why Markus suggested something along the lines > of "interoperable". If the list was arrived at by members of the Consortium who are vendors responsible for implementing (or not)

Re: Tailoring the Marketplace (is: Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final)

Peter Constable wrote: > The interest of consumers, in regard to emoji, will never be best met by > Unicode-encoded emoji, no matter what process there is for determining what > should be "recommended", because consumers inevitably want emoji they > recommend for themselves, not what anybody

RE: Tailoring the Marketplace (is: Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final)

_10...@btinternet.com> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:50 AM To: Peter Constable<mailto:peter...@microsoft.com>; unicode@unicode.org<mailto:unicode@unicode.org> Subject: Re: Tailoring the Marketplace (is: Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final) Peter Constable wrote: > The

Re: [OT] Europe vs. European Union (was: Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final)

Manuel Strehl wrote: > Maybe I'm missing context, but what is the specific problem of those > lists differing? > > The EU and Europe _are_ two different things. The United States of > America similarly do not include the whole of America, despite the > name. A previous offshoot of the flag

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Ken's observation "…approximately backwards…" is exactly right, and that's the same reason why Markus suggested something along the lines of "interoperable". I don't think we've come up with a pithy category name yet, but I tried different wording on the slides on http://unicode.org/emoji/. See

Re: [OT] Europe vs. European Union (was: Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final)

Maybe I'm missing context, but what is the specific problem of those lists differing? The EU and Europe _are_ two different things. The United States of America similarly do not include the whole of America, despite the name. And Norway and Switzerland and some others (incl. soon England) might

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On the topic I am surprised to see the only large Chinese comoany in the member list is Huawei, with none of large Chinese internet company, including Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Sina, Netease participating in Unicode. In associate member list there is a company named zhongyi but that link is already

[OT] Europe vs. European Union (was: Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final)

The UN "M49 Standard" (that's how they're styling it now; I guess we should stop writing "M.49") assigns a code element for each "country or area" and groups these into "geographical regions." To find the "countries or areas" included within code element 150 for "Europe," simply visit

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

2017-03-30 11:48 GMT+02:00 Christoph Päper : > Philippe Verdy hat am 30. März 2017 um 00:40 > geschrieben: > > > There's no ISO 3166-1 code for Europe at the whole (does it exist > legally if > > we can't clearly define its borders?) > > `150` in

Tailoring the Marketplace (is: Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final)

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:03:11 +0100 (BST), William_J_G Overington wrote: > > > What the UTC is looking for is commitments from major vendors. > > Well should it be applying such a filter on progress? > > I opine that assessment should be on merit and that new ideas should be > considered on an

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

William_J_G Overington wrote: >> Of course, there is some judgment involved as to what constitutes >> "major": at one extreme clearly 1B DAUs qualifies, and at the other >> extreme, 1K doesn't. > > What does 1B DAUs mean please? >From http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/DAU I gathered that

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

> What the UTC is looking for is commitments from major vendors. Well should it be applying such a filter on progress? I opine that assessment should be on merit and that new ideas should be considered on an even-handed basis. Progress should not be on the basis of what major vendors choose to

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Asmus Freytag wrote: > Recommending to vendors to support a minimal set is one thing. > Recommending to users to only use sequences from that set / or vendors > to not extend coverage beyond the minimum is something else. Both use > the word "recommendation" but the flavor is rather different

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

> `150` in UN M.49 which ISO 3166-1 was derived from and is compatible with. CLDR could safely adopt that if needed. No need to "safely adopt". It is already valid: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#flag-emoji-tag-sequences If you follow the links you'll end up at

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Charlotte Buff > > > Heck, if your device has a default font that includes CANCEL TAG (...) and > therefore doesn’t render it, > then you won’t even be able to see the difference between a regular, generic > black flag and an emoji that was meant to represent

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Philippe Verdy hat am 30. März 2017 um 00:40 geschrieben: > There's no ISO 3166-1 code for Europe at the whole (does it exist legally if > we can't clearly define its borders?) `150` in UN M.49 which ISO 3166-1 was derived from and is compatible with. CLDR could safely adopt

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On 2017/03/30 06:17, Christoph Päper wrote: Mark Davis ☕️ : That isn't really the case. In particular, vendors can propose adding additional subdivisions to the recommended list. Awesome, "vendors" can do that. (._.m) If I made an open-source emoji font that contained

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

> If I made an open-source emoji font that contained flags for all of the > 5000ish > ISO 3166-2 codes that actually map to one, would I automatically be > considered a > vendor? > Do I need to have to pay 18000(?) dollars a year for full membership > first? (That's peanuts for multi-billion

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

2017-03-30 1:29 GMT+02:00 Richard Wordingham < richard.wording...@ntlworld.com>: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:52:03 +0200 > Charlotte Buff wrote: > > > And this is where the problem becomes even worse. Because there are no > > “flag tofus” for 3166-2 regions. Unlike

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Richard Wordingham wrote: > I don't see why the tag characters can't be represented by some form of > corresponding ASCII characters as a fallback registering. The > bracketing pair U+1F3F4 WAVING BLACK FLAG .. U+E007F CANCEL TAG > declares a sequence of 3 to 6 intervening ordinary tags to be a

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:52:03 +0200 Charlotte Buff wrote: > And this is where the problem becomes even worse. Because there are no > “flag tofus” for 3166-2 regions. Unlike Regional Indicator Sequences, > the fallback for all unsupported tag sequences looks

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Ken Whistler wrote: > *But*, the ones who do have flags on their > phones don't want to be in the situation where the iPhone has a flag of > Scotland which then shows up as a flag tofu on an Android phone, but an > Android phone has a flag of Texas which then shows up as a flag tofu on > on

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Note: in your collection you say that the EU flag is the flag of the European Union, actually it is a flag for Europe at whole, made and proposed since long by the CoE, Council of Europe (not the european Union that still did not exist, and not even the EEC or even the CECA that were also created

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On 3/29/2017 2:07 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: Ken Whistler wrote: *But*, the ones who do have flags on their phones don't want to be in the situation where the iPhone has a flag of Scotland which then shows up as a flag tofu on an Android phone, but an Android phone has a flag of Texas which then

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Christoph Päper < christoph.pae...@crissov.de> wrote: > If I made an open-source emoji font that contained flags for all of the > 5000ish > ISO 3166-2 codes that actually map to one, would I automatically be > considered a > vendor? Do I need to have to pay

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Richard Wordingham : > "Doug Ewell" wrote: > > > "Not recommended," "not standard," "not interoperable," or any other > > term ESC settles on for the 5000+ valid flag sequences that are not > > England, Scotland, and Wales is just a short, easy

Traction and Deprecation (was: Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final)

On 3/29/2017 1:12 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: Is that common practice in Unicode, that if something doesn't gain significant traction in the comparatively short term, it becomes a candidate for deprecation? If a mechanism was dodgy in the first place and was dubious as a part of plain text, then

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Mark Davis ☕️ : > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Joan Montané wrote: > > > 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

RE: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Ken Whistler wrote: > *But*, the ones who do have flags on their phones don't want to be in > the situation where the iPhone has a flag of Scotland which then shows > up as a flag tofu on an Android phone, but an Android phone has a flag > of Texas which then shows up as a flag tofu on on iPhone,

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On 29 March 2017 at 21:09, Doug Ewell wrote: > >> I think "recommended" could be renamed to "(expected to be) widely >> implemented". > > That's a modest improvement; it shifts from an advisory health warning > not to use certain sequences to what it is, speculation that some >

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On 3/29/2017 1:12 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: I would think vendors could make their own business decisions about what flags to support. "Hmm, yeah, definitely Texas, maybe Lombardy, not so sure about Colorado, probably not Guna Yala." I don't see why they had to be essentially told what to support

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Martin J. Dürst wrote: > I think there is some missing information here. First, the original > proposal that used invalid UTF-8 sequences never was an RFC, only an > Internet Draft. Yes, you're right. I realized that a minute after "Send" but didn't think it changed the story enough to justify a

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Markus Scherer wrote: > I think "recommended" could be renamed to "(expected to be) widely > implemented". That's a modest improvement; it shifts from an advisory health warning not to use certain sequences to what it is, speculation that some sequences will be far better supported in the field

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

I think "recommended" could be renamed to "(expected to be) widely implemented". markus

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > Kind of have to agree with Doug here. Either support the mechanism or don't. > Saying "we, you CAN do this if you WANT to" always implies a "...but > you probably shouldn't." Why even bother making it a possibility? Mark's use of we made me smile and

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Hello Doug, On 2017/03/29 03:41, Doug Ewell wrote: If this story sounds vaguely familiar to old-timers, it's exactly the path that was followed the last time Plane 14 tag characters were under discussion, between 1998 and 2000: someone wrote an RFC to embed language tags in plain text using

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Kind of have to agree with Doug here. Either support the mechanism or don't. Saying "we, you CAN do this if you WANT to" always implies a "...but you probably shouldn't." Why even bother making it a possibility? On 03/28/2017 02:41 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: "Even though it is possible

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: > Mark Davis wrote: > > > 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 > >

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:41:38 -0700 "Doug Ewell" wrote: > "Not recommended," "not standard," "not interoperable," or any other > term ESC settles on for the 5000+ valid flag sequences that are not > England, Scotland, and Wales is just a short, easy step away from > deprecation

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Mark Davis wrote: > 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/. "Not

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Thanks Mark On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: > I just filed the bug in the CLDR contact form. > > 2017-03-28 12:49 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ : > >> ​Thanks. Probably best as: >> >> unicode_locale_id = unicode_language_id >>

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

I just filed the bug in the CLDR contact form. 2017-03-28 12:49 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ : > ​Thanks. Probably best as: > > unicode_locale_id = unicode_language_id > ( transformed_extensions unicode_locale_extensions? > |

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

​Thanks. Probably best as: unicode_locale_id = unicode_language_id ( transformed_extensions unicode_locale_extensions? | unicode_locale_extensions transformed_extensions? )? ;​ even clearer would be two steps: unicode_locale_id = unicode_language_id

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

I note this in TR32 *3.2 Unicode Locale Identifier * EBNF ABNF unicode_locale_id = unicode_language_id (transformed_extensions unicode_locale_extensions? |

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

​Good questions.​ On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Joan Montané wrote: > 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),

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

2017-03-28 7:57 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ : > 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 >

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

(I'm sure you know this, Philippe, but a reminder for others: as far as the Unicode projects go, discussions on this list have no effect unless they are turned into a submission (UTC or Emoji proposal, CLDR or ICU ticket).) If you see any problems in the CLDR data, please file a ticket at

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

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

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

I try to summarize the situation for France, There are some missing codes France métropolitaine (deprecated: [fx]): Départements métropolitains: [fr01~19 fr2a~b fr21~68 fr70-95] (unchanged) [fr6d] Rhône (département) (missing, included in [fr69]?) Statuts

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Philippe Verdy 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

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

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 ? 2017-03-28 2:06 GMT+02:00 Markus Scherer : > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Philippe Verdy > wrote:

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Also these yellow statements from the initial proposal are contradicting what is now published in TR51: "UN" and "EU" are accepted even if they are "macroregions", not satisfying the quoted condition 2 in the proposed update. 2017-03-28 1:58 GMT+02:00 Philippe Verdy : > This

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: > This only describes the sequences encoded with 2 characters, not the newer > longer sequences for flags of subnational regions. the > unicode_region_subtag data does not contain anything about the flags for > the first

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

This only describes the sequences encoded with 2 characters, not the newer longer sequences for flags of subnational regions. the unicode_region_subtag data does not contain anything about the flags for the first 3 regions in GB. 2017-03-28 1:35 GMT+02:00 Markus Scherer : >

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Ken Whistler wrote: > Anybody could *attempt* to convey a flag of Pomerania (a rather handsome > black gryphon on a yellow background, btw) with an emoji tag sequence right > now, I suppose. I suppose not. Since it's bound to ISO 3166

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: > Note also that ISO3166-2 is far from being stable, and this could > contradict Unicode encoding stability: it would then be required to ensure > this stability by only allowing sequences that are effectively registered

RE: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Philippe Verdy wrote: > So it's up to the UTC to create this encoding: this new relase is a > start for a new vexillology registry (within encoded sequences) which > creates a new standard for them. Fine. If you think you can persuade UTC that this is within their scope, go ahead. Let us know

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Ken Whistler wrote: > By the way, if anybody is looking, Pomerania is there: "plpm" among > the 4925 other valid unicode_subdivision_id values. So: > > Flag of Pomerania = 1F3F4 E0070 E006C E0070 E006D E007F > > But alas, that is not a *valid* emoji tag sequence (yet), so no soup > for you! This

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

So it's up to the UTC to create this encoding: this new relase is a start for a new vexillology registry (within encoded sequences) which creates a new standard for them. 2017-03-27 23:50 GMT+02:00 Doug Ewell : > Philippe Verdy wrote: > > > We still lack an encoding standard

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

(this time from the correct account) Philippe and others, http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/tr51-11.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences refers to CLDR data for the list of valid subregion sequences, see

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

And the new region of Normandie still has no formal code, but it reuses a flag that was used by one of the two former regions. Technically I don't see that as a problem except that people may want to display that flag using the code for the former region and semantically this is different (and

RE: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Philippe Verdy wrote: > We still lack an encoding standard for vexillologists. And for now > only "Flags of the World" proposes some encoding (not based strictly > and only on ISO3166). I think that the UTC should try contacting > authors of Flags of the World and seek for advice there: we are >

RE: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Ken Whistler wrote: > As for how "users" are supposed to know the difference. Well, they > don't. What matters is that the data file that the "implementers" will > use has these 3 emoji tag sequences in it, so that is quite likely > what everybody will see added to their phones. The "users" will

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 13:34:09 -0700 Ken Whistler wrote: > And if a flag of > California (or Pomerania or ...) then gets added to the list of emoji > tag sequences in a future version of the data, there is a good chance > that the "users" will then see the difference, because

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On 3/27/2017 1:39 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: Note also that ISO3166-2 is far from being stable, and this could contradict Unicode encoding stability: it would then be required to ensure this stability by only allowing sequences that are effectively registered in

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Note also that ISO3166-2 is far from being stable, and this could contradict Unicode encoding stability: it would then be required to ensure this stability by only allowing sequences that are effectively registered in http://www.unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/emoji-sequences.txt (independantly of

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On 3/27/2017 12:17 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: announcements at Unicode dot org wrote: — and new regional flags for England, Scotland, and Wales. It's not clear from this text, nor from the table in Section C.1.1 of the draft, what the status is of flag emoji tag sequences other than the three

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

2017-03-27 21:17 GMT+02:00 Doug Ewell : > announcements at Unicode dot org wrote: > > > — and new regional flags for England, Scotland, and Wales. > > It's not clear from this text, nor from the table in Section C.1.1 of > the draft, what the status is of flag emoji tag

RE: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

announcements at Unicode dot org wrote: > — and new regional flags for England, Scotland, and Wales. It's not clear from this text, nor from the table in Section C.1.1 of the draft, what the status is of flag emoji tag sequences other than the three above. I read the relevant section a couple