[UA-discuss] 69 New Emoji Have Been Approved By Unicode - Just in case you thought this Emoji stuff was a flash in the pan 🍳💥
marksv at microsoft.com
Mon Apr 3 18:59:13 UTC 2017
I understand what you are saying about letters, digits and others, but I am not familiar with Unicode defining good identifiers - where is that?
From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 10:41 AM
To: ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] 69 New Emoji Have Been Approved By Unicode - Just in case you thought this Emoji stuff was a flash in the pan 🍳💥
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:24:36PM +0000, Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss wrote:
> My opinions apply to anything outside of IDNA, not just emoji – if it’s not allowed by IETF and/or IDNA, it’s problematic.
I think you may want to spend a little more time with the Unicode standard, because most of the reasons that the IETF "disallows"
something is because it doesn't conform to the categories useful for identifiers. I.e. identifiers are best composed of letters and digits and maybe some other things (see the PRECIS framework for more discussion), and emoji aren't any of those things.
It's not the IETF that is saying emoji make bad identifiers. It's Unicode. If you want to lobby someone, go talk to them.
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
More information about the UA-discuss