I note this in TR32 *3.2 Unicode Locale Identifier <http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/index.html#Unicode_locale_identifier>*
EBNF ABNF unicode_locale_id <http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/index.html#unicode_locale_id> = unicode_language_id (transformed_extensions unicode_locale_extensions? | unicode_locale_extensions? transformed_extensions?) ; = unicode_language_id ([trasformed_extensions [unicode_locale_extensions]] / [unicode_locale_extensions [transformed_extensions]]) * first there's a typo in the ABNF syntax ("trasformed") * the syntax is not strictly equivalent, or the ABNF is unnecessarily not context-free It should better be: EBNF ABNF unicode_locale_id <http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/index.html#unicode_locale_id> = unicode_language_id (transformed_extensions unicode_locale_extensions? | unicode_locale_extensions transformed_extensions?)?; = unicode_language_id [transformed_extensions [unicode_locale_extensions] / unicode_locale_extensions [transformed_extensions]] 2017-03-28 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joan Montané <j...@montane.cat>: > > > 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-ta >> g-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 > >