Re: meaningful and meaningless FE0E

[Andrea Giammarchi]

It does not matter, the example POP should be visible, followed by an
ignored FE0E ... I think we are good here, nothing else to clarify from my
side.

Thanks :-)


On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Richard Wordingham <
richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:24:50 -0700
> Andrea Giammarchi  wrote:
>
> > ...no keyboard would automatically put such sequence
> > in a text field since such sequence as it is is meaningless for today
> > standards.
>
> While perhaps no keyboard would map it to a single keystroke plus
> modifiers, direct hex input is sometimes the swiftest input method, as
> I found when transcribing some theorems a few days ago.
>
> Richard.
> ___
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode@unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode

Re: meaningful and meaningless FE0E

[Richard Wordingham]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:24:50 -0700
Andrea Giammarchi  wrote:

> ...no keyboard would automatically put such sequence
> in a text field since such sequence as it is is meaningless for today
> standards.

While perhaps no keyboard would map it to a single keystroke plus
modifiers, direct hex input is sometimes the swiftest input method, as
I found when transcribing some theorems a few days ago.

Richard.
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode

Re: meaningful and meaningless FE0E

[Andrea Giammarchi]

But today, where emoji are parsed correctly, that's not a couple of
pointless empty squares but a POP followed by an ignored FE0E, which is
exactly my expectations accordingly with today standards.

If tomorrow this would change form some reason, it's not a problem of today
parsers and unless you intentionally create that sequence for your own
purposes, no keyboard would automatically put such sequence in a text field
since such sequence as it is is meaningless for today standards.

All good then, I've got my parser right :-)

THanks



On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Richard Wordingham <
richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:33:17 -0700
> Andrea Giammarchi  wrote:
>
> > I am trying to understand the expected behavior when there an
> > "unexpected VS15" after emoji that have not been defined, accordingly
> > with this file http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamesList.txt,
> > as VS15 sensitive.
>
> Variation selectors are 'default ignorable' - if an implementation
> does not understand it, it should ignore it.  In particular,
> Section 16.4 Version 6.3.0 of the Unicode Standard says that if the
> application does not understand the combination of base character and
> variation selector the variation selector should normally be ignored.
> This does not preclude the possibility that the renderer only has
> special modes, in all of which unknown variation selectors are displayed
> as flashing red question marks.
>
> > My take on FE0E is that all emoji that are sensible to this variant,
> > have an "emojified" counter part that should be used when followed by
> > FE0F and vice-versa a textual part when followed by FE0E, but all
> > other emoji should not consider such variant at all since there's no
> > textual counter part to represent, let's say, a 1F21A pile-of-poo
> >
> > "\ud83d\udca9\ufe0e"
> >
> > Can anyone please confirm my expectations are correct so that above
> > sequence in both Java or JavaScript will show the POP emoji
> > regardless, followed by FE0E variant that will be simply ignored and
> > actually no device/OS/render/viewer/browser would ever create such
> > sequence so it's actually a non problem, this one I am trying to
> > solve?
>
> There was nothing to stop me putting the sequence "💩︎"  OF POO, U+FE0E VARIATION SELECTOR-15> in my reply. Moreover, there is
> nothing to stop the sequence becoming defined at some time in the
> future.
>
> Richard.
>
> ___
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode@unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode

Re: meaningful and meaningless FE0E

[Richard Wordingham]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:33:17 -0700
Andrea Giammarchi  wrote:

> I am trying to understand the expected behavior when there an
> "unexpected VS15" after emoji that have not been defined, accordingly
> with this file http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamesList.txt,
> as VS15 sensitive.

Variation selectors are 'default ignorable' - if an implementation
does not understand it, it should ignore it.  In particular,
Section 16.4 Version 6.3.0 of the Unicode Standard says that if the
application does not understand the combination of base character and
variation selector the variation selector should normally be ignored.
This does not preclude the possibility that the renderer only has
special modes, in all of which unknown variation selectors are displayed
as flashing red question marks.

> My take on FE0E is that all emoji that are sensible to this variant,
> have an "emojified" counter part that should be used when followed by
> FE0F and vice-versa a textual part when followed by FE0E, but all
> other emoji should not consider such variant at all since there's no
> textual counter part to represent, let's say, a 1F21A pile-of-poo
> 
> "\ud83d\udca9\ufe0e"
> 
> Can anyone please confirm my expectations are correct so that above
> sequence in both Java or JavaScript will show the POP emoji
> regardless, followed by FE0E variant that will be simply ignored and
> actually no device/OS/render/viewer/browser would ever create such
> sequence so it's actually a non problem, this one I am trying to
> solve?

There was nothing to stop me putting the sequence "💩︎"  in my reply. Moreover, there is
nothing to stop the sequence becoming defined at some time in the
future.  

Richard.

___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode

Re: meaningful and meaningless FE0E

[Andrea Giammarchi]

Thank You!


On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Mark Davis ☕️  wrote:

> These variation selector characters only apply to specific characters,
> those listed in
>
> http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.html
>
> There is a machine-readable version at
> http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt
>
>
> Mark 
>
>  *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ok, here the simplified version of my question:
>>
>> would U+1F21A followed by U+FE0E be represented differently from what U+1F21A
>> is normally?
>>
>> is such sequence even a real concern or intent specified anywhere? (no,
>> can't find it, asking just confirmation)
>>
>> Thanks a lot for any outcome!
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
>> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>   this is my first email in this channel so apologies in advance if
>>> already discussed.
>>>
>>> I am trying to understand the expected behavior when there an
>>> "unexpected VS15" after emoji that have not been defined, accordingly with
>>> this file http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamesList.txt, as VS15
>>> sensitive.
>>>
>>> My take on FE0E is that all emoji that are sensible to this variant,
>>> have an "emojified" counter part that should be used when followed by FE0F
>>> and vice-versa a textual part when followed by FE0E, but all other emoji
>>> should not consider such variant at all since there's no textual counter
>>> part to represent, let's say, a 1F21A pile-of-poo
>>>
>>> "\ud83d\udca9\ufe0e"
>>>
>>> Can anyone please confirm my expectations are correct so that above
>>> sequence in both Java or JavaScript will show the POP emoji regardless,
>>> followed by FE0E variant that will be simply ignored and actually no
>>> device/OS/render/viewer/browser would ever create such sequence so it's
>>> actually a non problem, this one I am trying to solve?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance and Best Regards
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Unicode mailing list
>> Unicode@unicode.org
>> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>>
>>
>
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode

Re: meaningful and meaningless FE0E

[Mark Davis ☕️]

These variation selector characters only apply to specific characters,
those listed in

http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.html

There is a machine-readable version at
http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt


Mark 

 *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ok, here the simplified version of my question:
>
> would U+1F21A followed by U+FE0E be represented differently from what U+1F21A
> is normally?
>
> is such sequence even a real concern or intent specified anywhere? (no,
> can't find it, asking just confirmation)
>
> Thanks a lot for any outcome!
>
> Best Regards
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>   this is my first email in this channel so apologies in advance if
>> already discussed.
>>
>> I am trying to understand the expected behavior when there an "unexpected
>> VS15" after emoji that have not been defined, accordingly with this file
>> http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamesList.txt, as VS15 sensitive.
>>
>> My take on FE0E is that all emoji that are sensible to this variant, have
>> an "emojified" counter part that should be used when followed by FE0F and
>> vice-versa a textual part when followed by FE0E, but all other emoji should
>> not consider such variant at all since there's no textual counter part to
>> represent, let's say, a 1F21A pile-of-poo
>>
>> "\ud83d\udca9\ufe0e"
>>
>> Can anyone please confirm my expectations are correct so that above
>> sequence in both Java or JavaScript will show the POP emoji regardless,
>> followed by FE0E variant that will be simply ignored and actually no
>> device/OS/render/viewer/browser would ever create such sequence so it's
>> actually a non problem, this one I am trying to solve?
>>
>> Thanks in advance and Best Regards
>>
>
>
> ___
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode@unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
>
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode

Re: meaningful and meaningless FE0E

[Andrea Giammarchi]

ok, here the simplified version of my question:

would U+1F21A followed by U+FE0E be represented differently from what U+1F21A
is normally?

is such sequence even a real concern or intent specified anywhere? (no,
can't find it, asking just confirmation)

Thanks a lot for any outcome!

Best Regards


On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>   this is my first email in this channel so apologies in advance if
> already discussed.
>
> I am trying to understand the expected behavior when there an "unexpected
> VS15" after emoji that have not been defined, accordingly with this file
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamesList.txt, as VS15 sensitive.
>
> My take on FE0E is that all emoji that are sensible to this variant, have
> an "emojified" counter part that should be used when followed by FE0F and
> vice-versa a textual part when followed by FE0E, but all other emoji should
> not consider such variant at all since there's no textual counter part to
> represent, let's say, a 1F21A pile-of-poo
>
> "\ud83d\udca9\ufe0e"
>
> Can anyone please confirm my expectations are correct so that above
> sequence in both Java or JavaScript will show the POP emoji regardless,
> followed by FE0E variant that will be simply ignored and actually no
> device/OS/render/viewer/browser would ever create such sequence so it's
> actually a non problem, this one I am trying to solve?
>
> Thanks in advance and Best Regards
>
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode

meaningful and meaningless FE0E

[Andrea Giammarchi]

Dear all,
  this is my first email in this channel so apologies in advance if already
discussed.

I am trying to understand the expected behavior when there an "unexpected
VS15" after emoji that have not been defined, accordingly with this file
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamesList.txt, as VS15 sensitive.

My take on FE0E is that all emoji that are sensible to this variant, have
an "emojified" counter part that should be used when followed by FE0F and
vice-versa a textual part when followed by FE0E, but all other emoji should
not consider such variant at all since there's no textual counter part to
represent, let's say, a 1F21A pile-of-poo

"\ud83d\udca9\ufe0e"

Can anyone please confirm my expectations are correct so that above
sequence in both Java or JavaScript will show the POP emoji regardless,
followed by FE0E variant that will be simply ignored and actually no
device/OS/render/viewer/browser would ever create such sequence so it's
actually a non problem, this one I am trying to solve?

Thanks in advance and Best Regards
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode