The sections below contain links to permanent feedback documents for the open Public Review Issues as well as other public feedback as of January 26, 2017, since the previous cumulative document was issued prior to UTC #149 (November 2016). Some items in the Table of Contents do not have feedback here.
The links below go directly to open PRIs and to feedback documents for them, as of January 18, 2017.
Issue Name Feedback Link 344 New Unicode Character Property EquivalentUnifiedIdeograph (feedback) 343 Proposed Update UTR #51, Unicode Emoji (Version 5.0) (feedback) 342 Proposed Update UAX #50 Unicode Vertical Text Layout (feedback) no feedback to date 341 Proposed Update UAX #29 Unicode Text Segmentation (feedback) 340 Proposed Update UAX #9 Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm (feedback) 337 Proposed Update UTS #37, Unicode Ideographic Variation Database (feedback) no feedback to date 336 Proposed Update UAX #41, Common References for Unicode Standard Annexes (feedback) no feedback to date 335 Proposed Update UAX #14, Unicode Line Breaking Algorithm (feedback) 334 Proposed Update UTS #39, Unicode Security Mechanisms (feedback) 333 Proposed Update UAX #31, Unicode Identifier and Pattern Syntax (feedback) 332 Proposed Update UTS #10, Unicode Collation Algorithm (feedback) 329 Proposed Update UAX #44, Unicode Character Database (feedback)
The links below go to locations in this document for feedback.
Feedback to UTC / Encoding Proposals
Feedback on UTRs / UAXes
Note: The section of Feedback on Encoding Proposals this time includes:
Date/Time: Sun Dec 25 08:29:04 CST 2016
Name: S Barmeier
Report Type: Error Report (Feedback on L2/15-241)
Opt Subject: Description of U+A7AF LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL Q
Dear Unicode list, The character U+A7AF LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL Q of proposal L2/15-241 has been accepted for inclusion in the Unicode standard, and is listed in "Additional repertoire for ISO/IEC 10646:2016 (5th ed.) Amendment 1.2" (http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16381-n4778r-pdam1-2-charts.pdf). However, it is listed under "Letter for representation of morpheme in Japanese", which appears to be a typo for "Letter for representation of phoneme in Japanese". (The original proposal does not contain the word "morpheme".) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme Regards, Severin Barmeier
Date/Time: Tue Jan 17 20:59:50 CST 2017
Name: John Cowan
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: (L2/17-011)
Summary of options for redhead emoji
I would point out that Malcolm X had type 4 skin but red hair. According to Wikipedia, he inherited the red hair from his Scots grandfather. In addition, African Americans with dyed red hair are easily found: Google for [african american red hair]. This makes solution 2 (associate red hair with pale skin) unworkable.
Date/Time: Thu Jan 26 02:20:50 CST 2017
Name: Christoph Päper
Report Type: Other Question, Problem, or Feedback
Opt Subject: L2/16-337r ESC Process
The document does not specify the visibility for proposals in Stage 6 _Rejected_. Since it had reached Stage 2 before, the proposal will still be publicly available in the document register, but will certainly be removed from candidate charts (Stage 3) and beta data files (Stage 4). No emoji can ever advance from Stage 5 to 6, so perhaps it should be called “Stage 1b” or “Stage 0” instead. There currently is no (public) document which lists emoji candidates that failed to advance further or reasons for why a particular proposal was rejected. If such a document was available at <http://www.unicode.org/emoji/charts/> it could serve as a reference to improve the quality of new proposals submitted to the ESC and discourage futile ones. One could also point people to it if asked “why is there no […] emoji?” which is a question raised frequently – and really means “I wish there was a […] emoji!” in most cases.
Date/Time: Thu Jan 5 10:29:43 CST 2017
Name: Alastair Houghton
Report Type: Error Report (UTS #46)
Opt Subject: IdnaTest.txt contains incorrect test cases
The test vectors for UTS #46, which can be found in http://www.unicode.org/Public/idna/9.0.0/IdnaTest.txt appear to have a few errors. For instance, line 74: B; 0à.\u05D0; ; xn--0-sfa.xn--4db # 0à.א which should fail [B1] because the first character has Bidi property EN, not L, R or AL, and line 93: B; àˇ.\u05D0; ; xn--0ca88g.xn--4db # àˇ.א which should fail [B6] because “ˇ” has Bidi property ON, not L, EN or NSM. This is quite a common problem in the file. (I've already mentioned this on the Unicode mailing list and was asked by Mark Davis to report it here.)
Date/Time: Wed Jan 18 20:03:59 CST 2017
Name: Eric Muller
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: Text for Devanagari RA + vocalic liquids
The current text, TUS 9.0, top of p 460 The phonological sequence /r vocalic_r/ can graphically appear either as <myriad>RA<sub>l</sub></myriad> with a vowel sign for the vocalic_r, or as <smcp>VOCALIC R</smcp> with a superscript mark <myriad>RA<sub>sup</sub></myriad>. I suggest to: - add "<myriad>VOWEL SIGN VOCALIC R<sub>vs</sub></myriad>" before the comma (or just after the "sign" that precedes it), - replace "<smcp>VOCALIC R</smcp>" by "<myriad>LETTER VOCALIC R<sub>l</sub></myriad>"Eric.
Date/Time: Sat Jan 21 17:12:39 CST 2017
Name: Karl Williamson
Report Type: Other Question, Problem, or Feedback
Opt Subject: Best practices for replacing UTF-8 overlongs
A little over a month ago, I wrote a question to the unicode mailing list concerning the current rules in TUS for handling overlongs. Its message id was <firstname.lastname@example.org>. In short, I believe the best practices are wrong. This started a thread of comments, but no official explanation from any one in Unicode as to the rationale of why it is the way it is. Ken Whistler explicitly declined to defend the current text. And I found out that implementations, like ICU, do it the way I think it should be done. I would like the text changed to promote the ICU implementation as the best practice.