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 still depend on the RGI test to filter the set of emoji sequences" and proposes that the EBNF in UTS #51 be simplified on the basis that only RGI sequences will pass the "possible emoji" test anyway.
Thus it is true, as some people have said (i.e. in L2/17‐382), that non-RGI sequences do not actually count as emoji, and therefore there is no way — not merely no "recommended" way — to represent the flags of entities such as Catalonia and Brittany.
In 2016 I had asked for the emoji tag sequence mechanism for flags to be available for all CLDR subdivisions, not just three, with the understanding that the vast majority would not be supported by vendor glyphs. II t is unfortunate that, while the conciliatory name "recommended" was adopted for the three, the intent of "exclusively permitted" was retained.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
