> Or is bringing it up here good enough? You should submit a proposal, which you can do at https://www.unicode.org/reporting.html. It doesn't have to be much more than what you put in email.
(A reminder for everyone here: This is simply a discussion list, and has no effect whatsoever unless someone submits a proposal for the UTC.) Mark On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Manish Goregaokar <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >>> >> >> >
