On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Doug Ewell <d...@ewellic.org> 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 > > and CLDR, but is not listed in http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/. > > "Not recommended" is no better and no less disappointing than "not > standard." Both phrases imply strongly that the sequence, while > syntactically valid, should not be used. > I think the distinction between "valid" and "recommended" is confusing terminology-wise, but it does make sense to have a distinction between "valid" and "we know that one or more vendors are motivated to show these sequences as single glyphs". "valid" is clearly defined, and then there is a subset of valid that's listed in a catalog. Just like anyone is free to string some characters together with intervening ZWJ, but it is useful to have a catalog of sequences that are, or are going to be, in actual use, so that it is known which sequences are likely to work more or less the same on some set of devices. This right now is the right time to propose better wording in the spec so that implementers like you don't feel like they may get the rug pulled from under them down the road. markus