2017-03-28 7:57 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ <m...@macchiato.com>: > 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 > <http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#def_emoji_tag_sequence>, > but is not *valid* according to http://unicode.org/reports/tr5 > 1/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences > <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 > <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/ > <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/. >
Just two remarks 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), and Unicode doesn't recommend new subdivision flags (because they aren't supported by vendors). 2n one: What about "Adopt a Character" (AKA "Adopt an emoji"). Will be valid, but not recommended, Unicode subdivisions codes eligible? For instances, say, could someone adopt California, Texas, Pomerania, or Catalonia flags? Regards, Joan Montané