Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode (Fwd: Representing Additional Types of Flags)

The political subject is immediately related to the designation of flags and their association to ISO 3166-1 and -2 encoded entities. Even if you don't like it, this is very political and for a standard seeking for stability, I wonder how any flag (directly bound to specific political entities at s

Re: WORD JOINER vs ZWNBSP

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015, Khaled Hosny wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:02:18AM +0200, Marcel Schneider wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2015, Peter Constable > > wrote: > > > > > Marcel: Can you please clarify in what way Windows 7 is not supporting > > > U+2060. > > > > On my netbook, which is run

Re: WORD JOINER vs ZWNBSP

I'm sorry of the name mistake in this mail (it's corrected below) and got aware of a number of problems with sending secreenshots. As I just learned that links are preferred for images, I posted them on Postimage.   On Tue, Jun 30, 2015, Khaled Hosny wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:02:18

VS: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode (Fwd: Representing Additional Types of Flags)

I cannot but agree with Mark! Thus, please… Sincerely, Erkki Lähettäjä: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] Puolesta Philippe Verdy Lähetetty: 2. heinäkuuta 2015 12:02 Vastaanottaja: Mark Davis ☕️ Kopio: Doug Ewell; Unicode Mailing List Aihe: Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode (Fwd

Re: WORD JOINER vs ZWNBSP

This message contained a screenshot and originally contained several attached screenshots, which prevented it from being forwarded to the List. I removed all and suggest that for screenshots, readers might refer to the links I added in my e-mail I resent today to Khaled Hosny.   On Tue, Jun 3

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode (Fwd: Representing Additional Types of Flags)

Ok. I wasn't clear enough. Certainly boundaries are political and relevant, as is the fact that they change. What is not relevant is talking about particular country's motivations and actions. Moreover, you insist about writing a tome about this. In other words, TL;DR. Mark

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode (Fwd: Representing Additional Types of Flags)

It was not just about it but on the fact that nothing is solved and for things that Unicode does not want to support, there should be a better way using existing standards to bind some object with semantics taken from a blind but easily parsable object (here an URI ,without the need to reinvent a w

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode (Fwd: Representing Additional Types of Flags)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Philippe's core argument is that geopolitical entities and flags (as a specific instances of a design, in the heraldic sense) are disjoint. And that using geopolitical codes to refer to these designs is inherently unstable. On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 at 13:26 Phi

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode (Fwd: Representing Additional Types of Flags)

Noah Slater wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Philippe's core argument is that geopolitical entities and flags (as a specific instances of a design, in the heraldic sense) are disjoint. And that using geopolitical codes to refer to these designs is inherently unstable. But the

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode (Fwd: Representing Additional Types of Flags)

I wrote: But the only alternative is to encode about 200 discrete emoji [...] Here I am assuming that UTC will not shift gears and approve an "embedded URI" scheme, which sounds way too much like localizable you-know-whats. -- Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸

Re: Representing Additional Types of Flags

There must be a problem with my browser. When it displays the PRI #299 background document, there is text about using CLDR entities to define regions and subdivisions, to preclude stability problems in ISO 3166-1. Apparently that text doesn't appear on other people's browsers. -- Doug Ewell | http

Re: Representing Additional Types of Flags

Also posted as formal feedback to the PRI: 6. What is the policy on generating flag tags with unicode_region_subtag values corresponding to private-use BCP 47 subtags, other than those given special semantics by CLDR? Are they invalid or merely discouraged? Should tools allow users to create such

Re: Representing Additional Types of Flags

I'll try to answer a few of these. Mark *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: > Re-posting my comments and questions on this PRI to the list. I've > already submitted them as formal feedback. > > . > > I suppor

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode

On 7/2/2015 2:01 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: The frozen status of Antarctica ... ... will be addressed separately by global warming. But be that as it may... In really there's still no standard way to encode flags unambiguously and in a stable way. We'd like to have FOTW (Flags of the World

RE: Representing Additional Types of Flags

Mark Davis 🍻 wrote: >> Is there any precedent for CLDR to define the validity of Unicode >> character sequences? > > We already have, in tr51, the unicode_region_codes being used for > validity testing of flags: > http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Encoding > http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Flags

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode

To add some information that people like Noah may not be aware of: This email list is an open, public list for arbitrary discussions about Unicode and software internationalization. It is *not* an email list for consortium business—the vast majority of the people on it are *not* members of the Uni

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode

Why not add another 26 A-Z characters, call them "regional supplementary symbols", and let carriers decide what to encode and how to encode what they want with sequences * to their hearts' content? Leo On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Ken Whistler wrote: > > On 7/2/2015 2:01 AM, Philippe Verdy

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode

Again, that has no advantage over PUA characters. Carriers/vendors can *already* add whatever PUA characters they want to fonts and keyboards. But of course, the problem is interoperability; you send a flag to a friend for your favorite vacation spot, Florida, and the friend sees a flag for New Jer

Re: WORD JOINER vs ZWNBSP

On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 10:37:17 +0200 (CEST) Marcel Schneider wrote: > (because it is > sufficient to simply type the words one after each other without > anything between, to get them as *one* word) This only applies where it is traditional to separate words, a habit the Romans got out of and the I

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode

With extensible self-delimited regional indicator sequences the carriers will be able to come to an agreement and to petition Unicode to register them as named character sequences symbolizing flags not encoded by an ISO entity, like various rainbow flags, making sure that the format of such sequenc

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode

Leo Broukhis wrote: > With extensible self-delimited regional indicator sequences the > carriers will be able to come to an agreement and to petition Unicode > to register them as named character sequences symbolizing flags not > encoded by an ISO entity, like various rainbow flags, making sure t

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode

Ken Whistler wrote: > The UTC is neither responsible for nor interested in a "standard way > to encode flags unambiguously". > > [...] > > The Unicode Standard is not a vexillology standard -- nor will it ever > be. It is a standard for the encoding and interchange of characters. Even though I c

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode (Fwd: Representing Additional Types of Flags)

As I read, should those flag be versioned when being use?As the curremt implementation sound like those flag would change all over the time, and if people using the emoticon with country X's flag on it to show support for its current government, once the government have been overthrown and the over

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode

Currently a sequence of regional indicator symbols is parsed unambiguously by greedily taking pairs of RIS chars and interpreting them as ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 codes. If REGIONAL INDICATOR DASH and REGIONAL INDICATOR digits are added, along with regional supplementary symbols, then sequences * can be

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode

On 7/2/2015 12:33 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote: If REGIONAL INDICATOR DASH and REGIONAL INDICATOR digits are added, along with regional supplementary symbols, then sequences * can be parsed unambiguously as ISO 3166-2, whereas + can be parsed as a named sequence signifying a flag of a non-governmenta

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode

What I don't like about PRI #399 is its proposing to use default-ignorable characters. On a non-vexillology-aware platform, I'd like to see something informative, albeit not resembling a flag, but indicative of the intention to display a flag, like RIS can be, as opposed to nondescript white flags.

[OT] Versioning flags (was: Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode)

gfb hjjhjh wrote: > As I read, should those flag be versioned when being use?As the > curremt implementation sound like those flag would change all over the > time, and if people using the emoticon with country X's flag on it to > show support for its current government, once the government have

Re: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: > Ken Whistler wrote: > >> The UTC is neither responsible for nor interested in a "standard way >> to encode flags unambiguously". >> >> [...] >> >> The Unicode Standard is not a vexillology standard -- nor will it ever >> be. It is a standard fo

RE: Adding RAINBOW FLAG to Unicode (Fwd: Representing Additional Types of Flags)

Erkki, in this case, I think Philippe is making valid points. - For the proposal to be workable requires some means of ensuring stability of encoded representations. The way this would be done would be for CLDR to provide data with all valid sequences --- effectively becoming a regist