Ken Whistler wrote as follows. > A flag emoji is represented via a character sequence -- in this particular > case by an emoji tag sequence, as specified in UTS #51.
> The representation of flag emoji via emoji tag sequences is *OUT OF SCOPE* > for both the Unicode Standard and for ISO/IEC 10646. > If you find that hard to understand, consider another example. The spelling > of the word "emoji" as the sequence of Unicode characters <0065, 006D, 006F, 006A, 0069> is also *OUT OF SCOPE* for both the Unicode Standard and for ISO/IEC 10646. Neither standard specifies English spelling rules; nor does either standard specify flag emoji "spelling rules". It seems to me that the two examples are fundamentally different each from the other. The word emoji can be looked up in a dictionary and there one can find the sequence of glyphs that one needs to express that particular word. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/emoji If one then wishes to find the encoding of those glyphs, such that that particular word can become encoded as text characters in a message in an electronic system in an interoperable format, one can look in either The Unicode Standard or The ISO/IEC 10646 Standard and find code numbers. As the two standards are in synchronization one may, as I understand it, look in either. The Welsh flag can be looked up in a list of flags and the desired glyph can be found. If one then wishes to find the encoding of that glyph, such that that the glyph for that particular flag can become encoded as text characters in a message in an electronic system in an interoperable manner, then, as far as I am aware, that encoding cannot at this time be found in an International Standard. Also, whereas there are many languages there is only one collection of flags, as flags are intended to be mutually distinguishable from any other flag. WJGO >> Unless the answer is the first listed possibility, how does that work as regards interoperability of sending and receiving a Welsh flag on an electronic communication system? > One declares conformance to UTS #51 and declares the version of emoji that > one's application supports -- including the RGI (recommended for general > interchange) list of emoji one has input and display support for. If the > declaration states support for the flags of England, Scotland, and Wales, > then one must do so via the specified emoji tag sequences. Your > interoperability derives from that. Yet the interoperability does not derive from an International Standard. Widening the discussion somewhat, are the encodings that are formed for glyphs, such as for Astronaut, that are not using tag characters yet are using a sequence of characters including one or more ZWJ characters listed in both The Unicode Standard and The ISO/IEC 10646 Standard? It seems to me that tag sequences offer great possibilities for encoding, in effect a vast additional encoding space, yet for those encodings to be able to be used interoperably I opine they need to be listed in an International Standard, the International Standard in which they are listed may, but need not, being The ISO/IEC 10646 Standard. William Overington Wednesday 21 November 2018
