This is an interesting suggestion, Manish. <non-emoji-base, skin tone modifier> is a degenerate case, so if we following your suggestion we also could drop E_Base and E_Modifier, and rule GB10.
Instead, we'd add one line to *Extend <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-32.html#Extend>:* OLD Grapheme_Extend = Yes *and not* GCB = Virama NEW Grapheme_Extend = Yes, or Emoji characters listed as Emoji_Modifier=Yes in emoji-data.txt. See [UTS51 <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr41/tr41-21.html#UTS51>]. *and not* GCB = Virama Note: we are already planning to get rid of the GAZ/EBG distinction ( http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-32.html#GB10) in any event. Mark On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 13:24:29 +0530 > Manish Goregaokar via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > > <random non-emoji, skin tone modifier> sounds very much like a > > degenerate case to me. > > Generally yes, but I'm not sure that they'd be inappropriate for > Egyptian hieroglyphs showing human beings. The choice of determinative > can convey unpronounceable semantic information, though I'm not sure > that that can be as sensitive as skin colour. However, in such a case > it would also be appropriate to give a skin tone modifier the property > Extend. > > Richard. >
