You're right. It's between the closing > and the following 👩 character
\u003e *\u200d* \U0001f469 We'll see why that spurious character is there in the HTML. Mark On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Dominik Röttsches <dr...@google.com> wrote: > Hi, > > if I am not mistaken, there are a couple of additional, probably > unintentional ZWJ prefixes in field count 1,2,3 and 4,5,6 in > > http://www.unicode.org/emoji/charts/emoji-zwj-sequences.html > > From a hexdump of the page: > > 00008dd0 74 72 3e 0a 3c 74 72 3e 0a 3c 74 64 20 63 6c 61 |tr>.<tr>.<td > cla| > > 00008de0 73 73 3d 27 72 63 68 61 72 73 27 3e 31 3c 2f 74 > |ss='rchars'>1</t| > > 00008df0 64 3e 0a 3c 74 64 3e 55 2b 31 46 34 36 39 20 55 > |d>.<td>U+1F469 U| > > 00008e00 2b 32 30 30 44 20 55 2b 32 37 36 34 20 55 2b 46 |+200D U+2764 > U+F| > > 00008e10 45 30 46 20 55 2b 32 30 30 44 20 55 2b 31 46 34 |E0F U+200D > U+1F4| > > 00008e20 38 42 20 55 2b 32 30 30 44 20 55 2b 31 46 34 36 |8B U+200D > U+1F46| > > 00008e30 38 3c 2f 74 64 3e 0a 3c 74 64 20 63 6c 61 73 73 |8</td>.<td > class| > > 00008e40 3d 27 63 68 61 72 73 27 3e e2 80 8d f0 9f 91 a9 > |='chars'>.......| > > > So, after the U+003E '>', there is the e2 80 8d sequence of a ZWJ > there in field 1. > > Perhaps someone could fix that. > > Thanks, > > Dominik >
