On 29 March 2017 at 21:09, Doug Ewell <d...@ewellic.org> wrote: > >> I think "recommended" could be renamed to "(expected to be) widely >> implemented". > > That's a modest improvement; it shifts from an advisory health warning > not to use certain sequences to what it is, speculation that some > sequences will be far better supported in the field than others.
I don't think that would work. http://www.unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/emoji-sequences.txt explicitly lists just the three subdivision flags for England, Scotland and Wales under Emoji Tag Sequences, which indicates that they are special in an undefined way that none of the thousands of other potential subdivision flag tag sequences are. There must be a higher bar for inclusion in the Emoji data files than simply that they are expected to be widely implemented. Their inclusion in the Emoji data files and the Emoji charts (http://www.unicode.org/emoji/charts/emoji-ordering.html) must indicate that only these three tag sequences are recommended or sanctioned by the UTC. (In case anyone thinks I support the current situation, let me state that I disagree vehemently with the UTC decision to only "recommend" these three particular subdivision flag tag sequences.) Andrew