Re: Missing UAX#31 tests?

2018-07-09 Thread Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode
Thanks, Karl. Mark On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Karl Williamson wrote: > On 07/08/2018 03:21 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote: > >> I'm surprised that the tests for 11.0 passed for a 10.0 implementation, >> because the following should have triggered a difference for WB. Can you >> check on this

UAX #9: applicability of higher-level protocols to bidi plaintext

2018-07-09 Thread Shai Berger via Unicode
Hello all, About two and a half years ago, I suggested adding a FAQ about the applicability of higher-level protocols for bidirectional plaintext, as specified by http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/ -- my suggestion was to clarify that higher-level protocols can only be applied upon agreement

Re: Missing UAX#31 tests?

2018-07-09 Thread Karl Williamson via Unicode
On 07/08/2018 03:21 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote: I'm surprised that the tests for 11.0 passed for a 10.0 implementation, because the following should have triggered a difference for WB. Can you check on this particular case? ÷ 0020 × 0020 ÷#÷ [0.2] SPACE (WSegSpace) × [3.4] SPACE (WSegSpace) ÷

Re: Memoji

2018-07-09 Thread John H. Jenkins via Unicode
Memoji are not merely animated emoji; they are personalized avatars. As for animated emoji, I expect that the UTC would consider them out-of-scope for plain text. Note that web pages can already contain animated or moving elements which cannot be represented in plain text. > On Jul 9, 2018,

Memoji

2018-07-09 Thread William_J_G Overington via Unicode
I have seen the following video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjqERCCD4iM How will memoji be communicated from one device to another? What happens if a message containing a memoji gets into a web page, such as in the archives of this mailing list? So, I am wondering whether memoji will