The sections below contain links to permanent feedback documents for the open Public Review Issues as well as other public feedback as of October 7, 2025 - December 29, 2025, since the previous cumulative document was issued prior to UTC #185 (October 7, 2025).
The links below go directly to open PRIs and to feedback documents for them, as of December 29, 2025
The links below go to locations in this document for feedback.
Feedback routed to CJK & Unihan Working Group for evaluation [CJK]
Feedback routed to Script Encoding Working Group for evaluation [SEW]
Feedback routed to Properties & Algorithms Working Group for evaluation [PAG]
Feedback routed to Emoji Standard & Research Working Group for evaluation [ESC]
Feedback routed to Editorial Working Group for evaluation [EDC]
Feedback routed to Charts Working Group for evaluation [CHARTS]
Other Reports
Date/Time: Fri Dec 26 02:11:18 PT 2025
ReportID: ID20251226021118
Name: Eiso Chan
Report Type: Report Error in Publication/Data
Opt Subject: UTC-01301 on USourceData.txt
UTC-01301 has been discussed during IRG meeting, and IRG experts have confirm it is the variant of U+28AB5. The current entry is below. UTC-01301;WS-2024;;167.9;;⿰金朐;UTCDoc L2/15-177 100;;17;3 It is better to modify as below. UTC-01301;Variant;U+28AB5;167.9;;⿰金朐;UTCDoc L2/15-177 100;;17;3
Date/Time: Tue Oct 21 09:07:25 PT 2025
ReportID: ID20251021090725
Name: Philippe Verdy
Report Type: Report Error in Publication/Data
Opt Subject: Tangut ideograph-18D0A: inconsistant nb of strokes
u18d0a (18 strokes, should be 16) radical component-766 u18afd (3 strokes) + component-041 u18828 (3 strokes) + component-141 u1888c (4 strokes) component-002 u18801 (1 stroke) + component-281 u18918 (5 strokes) N5217-10 The classification for Tangut ideograph U+18D0A indicates RSindex 766.18 (i.e. a total of 18 strokes) which was accurate when N5217 was prepared, but when Unicode 17.0, the initial radical 267 indicated in the N5217R2 proposal (https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5217r2-Tangut-components-ideographs.pdf) was disunified and replaced by component 766, which has 2 less strokes. So finally the RSindex for U+18D0A should have been adjusted accordingly from 267.18 to 766.16 (not 766.18). This inconsistency may also affect other Tangut ideographs (existing before Unicode 17.0, or those added in Unicode 17.0 in the main Tangut Ideographs block or in the new Tangut Ideographs Supplement clobk) that were affected by the disunification of their initial radical component to: component-763 (26 ideographs in the main Tangut block), component-766 (50 ideographs in the main Tangut block), component-767 (16 ideographs in the main Tangut block) and component-768 (1 ideograph in the main Tangut block). They all need to be checked again.
Date/Time: Fri Dec 19 20:12:18 PT 2025
ReportID: ID20251219201218
Name: Zifeng Dai
Report Type: Report Error in Publication/Data
Opt Subject: An error on the unreleased Small Seal Script table
I had studied the table in your website(Small Seal) and identified an issue in the page 156 of the PDF file, where U+3994E and U+3994F(THX version small seal of "丏" and "首")share the same identical glyph. As this version has not yet been released, I am writing to bring this matter to your attention. I am uncertain whether this is the appropriate channel for communication;if not, kindly advise me on the correct procedure for submitting feedback. Thanks for consideration! Zifeng Dai
Date/Time: Mon Nov 10 13:13:21 PST 2025
ReportID: ID20251110131321
Name: Michel Mariani
Report Type: Report Error in Publication/Data
Opt Subject: UTS #18 not up-to-date
The Unicode page about Unicode Regular Expressions (UTS #18), dated February 8, 2022, has never been updated since then.
https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr18/
The four new Unicode properties: IDS_Unary_Operator, ID_Compat_Math_Start, ID_Compat_Math_Continue, and NFKC_Simple_Casefold,
introduced in Unicode 15.1, are only listed later in the Proposed Update page, dated May 11, 2023.
https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr18/proposed.html
It is unclear whether this document is a reference for third parties, but not having it kept up-to-date would explain
why all implementations of regular expressions in JavaScript in navigators such as Safari or Firefox, or in the Electron
framework based on Chromium, or even in the NPM module regexpu-core, appear to have no support for those four new properties:
for instance, while the regex \p{IDS_Binary_Operator}/u is just fine, \p{IDS_Unary_Operator}/u triggers an "Invalid regular expression" error...
(None at this time.)
Date/Time: Tues Jan 06 14:22:16 PT 2026
ReportID: ID20260106142216
Name: Battista Benciolini
Report Type: Report Error in Publication/Data
Opt Subject: confusion between ASCII standard and other standard
I've read several sections of the Unicode 17.0 standard, which I downloaded as a PDF file. On many pages, I find the familiar information that ASCII is a 7-bit code, with code points ranging from 0x00 to 0x7F. This is why I wonder whether table 5.1 on page 271 is entirely correct and consistent. Does the control character "NEL" (i.e. next line) really exist in the ASCII code? How can the number 0x85 be represented with 7 bits ?? I suspect the error is in the header of the fourth column of the cited table. Perhaps it should be something like "ISO/IEC 8859-1 (Latin 1)". best regards Battista Benciolini
Date/Time: Thur Oct 30 20:42:39 PST 2025
ReportID: ID20251030204239
Name: Roozbeh Pournader
Report Type: Report Error in Publication/Data
Opt Subject: End of some blocks misidentified in PDF charts
The character at the end of some blocks is misidentified in the PDF charts. For example, the Tangut Supplement block is specified in Blocks.txt as 18D00..18D7F, while in its PDF chart at https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U18D00.pdf there is no mention of 187DF and there's only a range of assigned characters: 18D00–18D1E. Compare this with the Cuneiform block, where despite the characters ending at 12399, the end of the block is clearly specified as 123FF on both the first page of the PDF (https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U12000.pdf) and the top right header on its fifth page (the page numbered 1415). The inconsistency may have its own reason (different chart style), but it's confusing to users. I had to check the Blocks.txt file to find out where the actual block ends, which may not be an obvious place to look for most users of the standard.
(None at this time.)