On January 5, Mark Davis wrote:
Doug, I modified my working draft, at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EuNjbs0XrBwqlvCJxra44o3EVrwdBJUWsPf8Ec1fWKY
If that looks ok, I'll submit.
Sorry for the delay. The text substitutions look fine.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
Doug, I modified my working draft, at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EuNjbs0XrBwqlvCJxra44o3EVrwdBJUWsPf8Ec1fWKY
If that looks ok, I'll submit.
Thanks again for your comments.
Mark
Mark
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote:
> Thanks for your comments; you raise an excelle
Thanks for your comments; you raise an excellent issue. There are valid
sequences that are not RGI; a vendor can support additional emoji sequences
(in particular, flags). So the wording in the doc isn't correct.
It should do something like replace the use of "testing for RGI" by
"testing for vali
Mark Davis wrote:
BTW, relevant to this discussion is a proposal filed
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17434-emoji-rejex-uts51-def.pdf (The
date is wrong, should be 2017-12-22)
The phrase "emoji regex" had caused me to ignore this document, but I
took a look based on this thread. It says "we
4 matches
Mail list logo