Re: Unicode 5.0 decompositions of Balinese vowel signs with tedung

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Fri Apr 14 2006 - 12:33:08 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Unicode 5.0 decompositions of Balinese vowel signs with tedung"


    > Thanks, that's exactly the 10 characters I reported to you.
    > Will it becorrected before Unicode 5.0 release despite all
    > what the Unicode 5.0 BETA page says about normative properties
    > that won't be fixed now but "after" the release?

    It is currently under discussion among the UTC members.

    > My opinion is that if this is not corrected now (in the BETA
    > period) then it won't be possible to correct it AFTER the
    > release (due to the Unicode Statiblity Pact).

    That is right, and it is good that you brought this to the
    list's attention, because decompositions are precisely the
    kind of thing which cannot be corrected after an official

    > The indications on the Unicode BETA page is really ennoying,
    > because it introduces a contradiction: this wording states
    > that normative properties are fixed now (already normative and
    > immutable),

    Not normative properties in general, but *some* normative properties,
    and that statement merely reflects the decision that was taken
    at the last UTC to stop updating some subset of the properties
    as of March 7, 2006.

    > so there has never been any BETA period to test them,

    This, however, is flagrantly false. The first iteration of
    UnicodeData.txt containing Unicode 5.0 data fields,
    UnicodeData-5.0.0d2.txt, was posted on September 28, 2005
    in the Public/5.0.0/ucd/ directory for public review, and went
    through 7 more deltas, all publicly posted, by January 2006,
    prior to the decisions taken at the last UTC meeting, which
    resulted in the posting of the current delta, UnicodeData-5.0.0d10.txt.

    The current beta page is for the beta 2 -- the second round of
    beta review of the Unicode Character Database data files.

    > if this policy is followed. A beta is a beta: all should be correctable,
    > including those properties in the main UCD file.

    You may think what you want, but the beta reflects whatever
    constraints are placed upon it by decisions of the UTC.

    > I will look further on the Ol Chiki and Cham proposals. I hope you
    > have not forgotten canonical decompositions for the new scripts
    > and characters.

    I'm not sure who the "you" is here.

    By all means, please review the Ol Chiki and Cham proposals -- the
    earlier the better.

    Keep in mind their relevant statuses, however. Ol Chiki is
    under ballot in Amendment 3. (And in my opinion, nobody -- the
    original proposer, nor the UTC -- has missed any canonical
    decompositions for that script.)

    Cham is just a proposal at this date -- it is not yet included
    in a 10646 ballot document, nor has it been approved for
    encoding by the UTC.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 14 2006 - 12:40:03 CST