Noah Slater <nslater at tumbolia dot org> wrote: > Can someone help me understand what this means for my rainbow flag > proposal?
You may want to go back and read Ken Whistler's suggestion from Monday: > I suggest that this thread about the RAINBOW FLAG be > directed to the soon-to-be-posted Public Review Issue about extending > the generative mechanisms for representing emoji symbols for flags, > but that that feedback carefully consider how such an addition would > coexist with other mechanisms for extensions of flag representation > *and* how it could be reasonably limited to one instead of 28 (... or > 500) more flags. I posted feedback yesterday on this PRI that was intended to be consistent with what Ken wrote: > Any proposal to extend the mechanism to cover the many other types of > flags -- for historical regions, NGOs, maritime, sports, or social or > political causes -- must be systematic and well-planned, not ad-hoc or > haphazard, to assure interoperability and extensibility. In other words, to the extent you wish to pursue encoding the rainbow flag as a flag-tag sequence, I suggest this is part of a broader problem space (how to encode flags for non-geopolitical entities) and requires a broader solution that can apply to any arbitrary number of such flags. In other, other words, something like "[flag]LGBT" should be a non-starter. If you are still suggesting a single character, this thread doesn't affect that suggestion at all. -- Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
