Christoph Päper wrote:
Could and should custom vendor extensions like the ones documented
in [EmojiSources.txt] be included in these mappings?
They could, but it would be best for vendors to publish their actual
mappings rather than others guessing them.
If an existing character encoding forms the (sole) base of an addition
to Unicode, shouldn't it be part of the UTC's job to document these
sources? This was obviously done in the case of Japanese emoji, hence
the existence of EmojiSources.txt, but for some reason that's been
kept separate from related mapping data files.
I can confirm that the UTC is not interested in mappings for W*dings
contributed by someone other than the vendor, even if they were taken
directly from the final proposal to encode the remaining unencoded
symbols in those sets.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
