Note that emoji ≠ present in http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/EmojiSources.txt
It would probably be useful to read through http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/, which is where we are working on various aspects of emoji, in your case especially - http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Identification - http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Presentation_Style There are charts attached to the TR that can also be reviewed (and commented on), such as http://www.unicode.org/Public/emoji/1.0/text-style.html If you have feedback on the data (either supporting what is there, or recommending changes), you can submit your feedback via a link to Feedback (found at the top, and in the review notes for each of the sections). We haven't yet made firm recommendations on the variation selectors or the default emoji style, so what is there is a fairly a raw draft. (but we are making progress; see https://plus.google.com/+MarkDavis/posts/MLqEc79yN22). Personally, I think that if a character is in the recommended list for emoji, then: - if the default style is text, we must have variation selectors. - if the default style is emoji, then we should have variation selectors if it is in common use with a non-emoji presentation (typical for characters that have been in Unicode for a long time). Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < [email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Mark, I mean not listened anywhere here: > http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt > > I'd expect to find the following there: > > 00A9 FE0E; text style; # COPY RIGHT MARK > 00A9 FE0F; emoji style; # COPY RIGHT MARK > > > for the simple reason that 00A9 is listed as emoji: > http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/EmojiSources.txt > > Apparently there's no place that says FE0F should affect 00A9, neither a > place that states the opposite: 00A9 FE0E as text. > > Are my expectations wrong or should these chars handled any differently > from other emoji ? > > Thanks > > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Mark Davis [image: ☕]️ < > [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < >> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> standard variant sensitive >> >> >> It is not clear what you mean by "standard variant sensitive". Can you >> elaborate? >> >> >> >> Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis> >> >> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* >> >
_______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
