Ken's observation "…approximately backwards…" is exactly right, and that's the same reason why Markus suggested something along the lines of "interoperable".
I don't think we've come up with a pithy category name yet, but I tried different wording on the slides on http://unicode.org/emoji/. See what you think, Doug. Mark Mark On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Doug Ewell <d...@ewellic.org> wrote: > Asmus Freytag wrote: > > > Recommending to vendors to support a minimal set is one thing. > > Recommending to users to only use sequences from that set / or vendors > > to not extend coverage beyond the minimum is something else. Both use > > the word "recommendation" but the flavor is rather different (which > > becomes more obvious when you re-phrase as I suggested). > > > > That seems to be the source of the disconnect. > > That seems a fair analysis. > > Another way of putting this is that marking a particular subset of valid > sequences as "recommended" is one thing, while listing sequences in a > table with a column "Standard sequence?", with some sequences marked > "Yes" and others marked "No," is something else. > > Equivalently, characterizing a group of valid sequences as "Valid, but > not recommended" is something else. > > If the goal is to tell users that three of the sequences are especially > likely to be supported, or to tell vendors that they should prioritize > support for these three, then "recommended" and "additional," used as a > pair, would be more appropriate. > > If the goal is to tell users "we don't want you to use the other 5100 > sequences" and to tell vendors "we don't want you to offer support for > them," then the existing wording is fine. > > -- > Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org > >