> Note: we are already planning to get rid of the GAZ/EBG distinction ( http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-32.html#GB10) in any event.
This is great! I hadn't noticed this when I last saw that draft (I was focusing on the Virama stuff). Good to know! > Instead, we'd add one line to *Extend <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-32.html#Extend>:* Yeah, this is essentially what I was hoping we could do. Is there any way to formally propose this? Or is bringing it up here good enough? Thanks, -Manish On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 9:17 PM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode < [email protected]> wrote: > This is an interesting suggestion, Manish. > > <non-emoji-base, skin tone modifier> is a degenerate case, so if we > following your suggestion we also could drop E_Base and E_Modifier, and > rule GB10. > > Instead, we'd add one line to *Extend > <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-32.html#Extend>:* > > OLD > Grapheme_Extend = Yes > *and not* GCB = Virama > > NEW > Grapheme_Extend = Yes, or > Emoji characters listed as Emoji_Modifier=Yes in emoji-data.txt. See [ > UTS51 <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr41/tr41-21.html#UTS51>]. > *and not* GCB = Virama > > Note: we are already planning to get rid of the GAZ/EBG distinction ( > http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-32.html#GB10) in any event. > > Mark > > On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 13:24:29 +0530 >> Manish Goregaokar via Unicode <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > <random non-emoji, skin tone modifier> sounds very much like a >> > degenerate case to me. >> >> Generally yes, but I'm not sure that they'd be inappropriate for >> Egyptian hieroglyphs showing human beings. The choice of determinative >> can convey unpronounceable semantic information, though I'm not sure >> that that can be as sensitive as skin colour. However, in such a case >> it would also be appropriate to give a skin tone modifier the property >> Extend. >> >> Richard. >> > >
