A few other thoughts:
* One of our (or at least my) overarching goals for this proposal is to
refine identifier and operator sets by moving away from an ad-hoc
character-by-character approach to a systematic treatment that relies on
well-defined criteria to select blocks of characters for inclusion.
I completely agree with this, up to the point where you wrote "select
blocks". That doesn't seem to be the way things are selected in the Unicode
We can choose to adopt blocks as an interim measure, but we should not
loose sight of the notion that this should eventually be property-driven.
* Particularly if the community insists on emoji being identifiers, we
will have to critically evaluate how to proceed on that in tandem with
operators, because there exist emojified operators and arrows, and certain
emoji are encoded in blocks that are otherwise symbols, which Unicode is
likely to deem as operators in the future.
This is not correct. The current view in the UAX31 discussion is that
emojis and pictographics should be excluded from *both* types of
identifiers so that individual programming languages can make
The main current problem is that there is no clear-cut Unicode property
covering Emojis at the present time, which is something that needs to be
resolved over in Unicode-land. There is a list given in the antique texty
UCD file format, but it isn't part of the XML formulation of the UCD
database. I'll be generating a proposed update shortly, and when I have
that I can provide a working list in the form of a C file that can be used
I have a mild preference that emojis should live in conventional
identifiers if they are adopted.
Moreover, IIUC, certain codepoints can be either emoji or non-emoji
symbols and variant selectors can specify which they are...
Can you expand on this and (hopefully) point me at the appropriate spot in
one of the Unicode TRs?
Indeed. This issue first popped up on my radar when John Gruber wrote that
he had issues with his website displaying the curly arrow symbol as emoji
in recent browsers:
Turns out, certain characters have emoji variants and text variants, which
can be selected for explicitly by appending a variant selector:
However, whether the *default* presentation in the absence of a variant
selector is text or emoji can change from platform to platform, or from use
case to use case. This is explicitly spelled out in UTR#51:
"The presentation of a given emoji character depends on the environment,
whether or not there is an emoji or text variation selector, and the
default presentation style (emoji vs text). In informal environments like
texting and chats, it is more appropriate for most emoji characters to
appear with a colorful emoji presentation, and only get a text presentation
with a text variation selector. Conversely, in formal environments such as
word processing, it is generally better for emoji characters to appear with
a text presentation, and only get the colorful emoji presentation with the
emoji variation selector."
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro < firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < > email@example.com> wrote: