Unicode Technical ReportsMoved by V.S. Umamaheswaran, seconded by Deborah Goldsmith
7 for (Adobe, Apple, Compaq, IBM, Justsystem, Microsoft, PeopleSoft, Sybase, Trigeminal, Unisys)
5 abstain (Basis, Compaq, RLG, Trigeminal, Unisys)
[91-C1] Consensus: The UTC approves the update of Unicode Technical Standard #6 A Standard Compression Scheme for Unicode and forwards to the Editorial Committee for final text review and publication. [L2/02-171]
[91-C2] Consensus: Take the draft of UCD in XML and make the following changes, then re-submit as a second committee draft: [L2/02-179]IRG
- Take the XML document and separate programmatic side.
- Remove the name list information from the XML document
- Make DTD be generated from the UCD itself.
[91-C4] Consensus: UTC accepts the 87 tetragram and related characters for encoding at 1D300..1D356. [L2/02-089]
[91-C5] Consensus: Leave the ROBAT as it is in the standard today (do not deprecate) and document its use appropriately. [L2/02-131]
[91-C6] Consensus: UTC supports approving, opposing, or postponing acceptance of the six Syriac/Sogdian characters based upon the best available evidence presented in the WG2 meeting in Dublin. [L2/02-132]
[91-C7] Consensus: The Uralic Phonetic Alphabet (UPA) characters proposed in L2/02-141 are not ready for encoding at this time.
[91-C8] Consensus: UTC would support addition of the six Sogdian characters in document L2/02-132 if the information requested by Paul Nelson were supplied in the proposal.Unicode Technical Reports
[91-C9] Consensus: Advance Proposed Draft Unicode Technical Report #29 Text Boundaries to Draft Unicode Technical Report #29 Text Boundaries after incorporating comments received during discussion and review by the Editorial Committee. [L2/02-164, 175]
[91-M2] Motion: Draft Unicode Technical Report #29 Text Boundaries is to be placed on track to become a Unicode Annex for 4.0.Moved by Ken Whistler, seconded by V.S. Umamaheswaran
12 for (Adobe, Apple, Basis, HP, IBM, Justsystem, Microsoft, Oracle, PeopleSoft, Sun, Trigeminal, Unisys)
2 abstain (RLG, Compaq)
[91-C10] Consensus: Accept document L2/02-186, after incorporating modifications discussed in the meeting, as Proposed Draft Unicode Technical Report #30 Character Foldings.
[91-M3] Motion: The UTC rejects the encoding of duplicate digits 0-9 for Urdu, and will document more clearly the range of glyphs that can be used for digits. The remaining characters proposed in L2/02-163 are a good initial proposal, but needs further time for expert review and should not be accepted into either of the two WG2 amendments. [L2/02-163]
Point 1. Urdu Misra Sign: needs expert opinion; would support if expert opinion supports.
Point 2. Urdu Safah Sign: needs expert opinion; would support if expert opinion supports.
Point 3. Urdu Nuqtatain: defer under all circumstances.
Point 4. Urdu Jazm: needs expert opinion; would support if expert opinion supports.
Point 5. Arabic Small High Tah: needs expert opinion; would support if expert opinion supports.
Point 6. Bismillah Ligature: acceptable, would not oppose encoding.
Point 7. Urdu digits 0-9: opposed.
Moved by Ken Whistler, seconded by Asmus Freytag
9 for (Adobe, Basis, HP, IBM, Justsystem, Oracle, PeopleSoft, Sun, Unisys)
3 against (Apple, Microsoft, Trigeminal)
2 abstain (Compaq, RLG).
[91-C11] Consensus: The UTC accepts two Greek characters for use in Bactrian: U+03F7 GREEK CAPITAL LETTER SHO and U+03F7 GREEK SMALL LETTER SHO. [L2/02-056]
[91-C12] Consensus: The UTC is willing to entertain a proposal for the disunification of Coptic and Greek, and hopes that proponents of the disunification will bring forward fully worked out proposal. The UTC requests more information on why this should be considered a script difference rather than a style difference within a script (for example such as Gaelic versus Roman). [L2/98-022]WG20
[91-C13] Consensus: The UTC recommends that Annex A of WG20 TR 10176 be modified to point to two options for handling identifiers: 1) the XML 1.1 model, or 2) the Unicode model. Both are well defined, consistent models. The UTC supports V. S. Umamaheswaran as the editor. [L2/02-142]IRG
[91-C14] Consensus: The UTC favors disbanding CLAUI.
[91-C16] Consensus: The UTC would like clarification of the Han unification errors and would like to see flexibility allowed in resolving them. [L2/02-115]Scripts and New Characters
[91-C17] Consensus: The UTC accepts four Deseret characters at the following code locations: [L2/02-169]IRG
U+10426 DESERET CAPITAL LETTER OI
U+10427 DESERET SMALL LETTER OI
U+1044E DESERET CAPITAL LETTER EW
U+1044F DESERET SMALL LETTER EW
[91-C18] Consensus: The UTC accepts the CJK mapping additions given in L2/02-155, 156, and requests that the IRG add them to the Super CJK database, after verification. Update the Unihan data file and notify WG2 of the changes related to the amendment under ballot.Scripts and New Characters
[91-M4] Motion: The UTC 1) accepts the UPA repertoire give in document L2/02-192, 2) approves moving the two rows of Greek additions and the Cyrillic addition to the UPA extensions table, and 3) to encode the UPA extension table on Plane 1.Character DeprecationMoved by Mark Davis, seconded by Cathy Wissink[91-M5] Motion: The UTC representatives at WG2 are not instructed to reject the repertoire of UPA if there is no consensus to encode the characters on Plane 1 (affects part 3 of 91-M4). [L2/02-192]
11 for (Adobe, Apple, HP, Justsystem, Microsoft, Oracle, PeopleSoft, RLG, Sun, Trigeminal, Unisys)
3 abstain (IBM, Basis, Compaq).Moved by Asmus Freytag, seconded by Ken Whistler
8 for (Adobe, Apple, Basis, HP, IBM, PeopleSoft, Trigeminal, Unisys)
1 against (Microsoft)
5 abstain (Compaq, Justsystem, Oracle, RLG, Sun).
[91-C18] Consensus: The UTC requests the officers establish a process for public review of selected issues. Included will be candidates for deprecation.Unicode Technical Reports
[91-C19] Consensus: The UTC proposes that the language tag characters be made candidates for the deprecated property and that this be taken for public review.
[91-C20] Consensus: Advance the Proposed Update to Unicode Technical Standard #10 Collation to Unicode Technical Standard #10 Collation, after incorporating Cathy Wissink's comment on the linguistic applicability of the default table, and after review by the Editorial Committee. [L2/02-173]
[91-C21] Consensus: Advance Proposed Draft Unicode Technical Report #23 Character Properties to Draft Unicode Technical Report #23 Character Properties, after incorporating feedback, and after review by the Editorial Committee. [L2/02-172]Combining Breve/macron over the oo Pair
[91-C22] Consensus: Encode three new double diacritics with the following names and proposed code points: [L2/02-148, 176]Variation Selection
U+FE24 COMBINING DOUBLE BREVE
U+FE25 COMBINING DOUBLE MACRON
U+FE26 COMBINING DOUBLE LOW LINE
[91-C23] Consensus: Issue a corrigendum removing the two variant sequences as indicated in L2/02-126, and request that WG2 also process a corresponding technical corrigendum.Properties
[91-C24] Consensus: Change StandardizedVariants.html to a machine readable text file, and have the Editorial Committee examine producing a visible means of displaying the variant selector characters.
[91-C25] Consensus: The Unicode font policy applies to variants.
[91-C26] Consensus: Remove U+06DD ARABIC END-OF-AYAH from default ignorable code point property.East Asian Mapping Tables
[91-C27] Consensus: The UTC sees value in publishing information that documents known discrepancies in existing East Asian mapping tables.Bidi Issues
[91-C28] Consensus: The UTC approves clarifying Bidi reordering and joining as described in points 1, 4, and 6 of L2/02-194, and remands further consideration of points 2, 3, and 5 to the Bidi Committee.Unicode Technical Reports
[91-C29] Consensus: The UTC requests the production of two documents on Unicode conformance: (1) one on the conformance model and (2) one on test cases. The UTC also sees the need for further test data. [L2/02-149, 165]Terminology
[91-C30] Consensus: The UTC agrees on the following use of terminology. Note that Assigned, Reserved, Designated, and Undesignated will be formally defined:
|Code Point||General Category||Status|
|Assigned to abstract character*||Normal||1. Graphic||(All other)||Designated* (assigned code point or simply assigned)|
|Reserved*||5. Surrogate (reserved for UTF-16)||Cs|
|6. Noncharacter (permanently reserved for internal uses)||Cn|
|7. Reserved (for future assignment)||Undesignated* (unassigned)|
[91-C31] Consensus: The UTC agrees that scalar value is to be defined as equivalent to non-surrogate code points. Further work to define this term is remanded to the Editorial Committee.