Re: Latin Extended-D

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Fri Jul 21 2006 - 07:28:39 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "ISO 15924 updated"

    Nothing is wrong in the files (and this part has not changed and been discussed here since the first early beta versions many months ago); it's just that there are other characters in the pipeline whose definitive allocation was not adopted for the Unicode 5.0 release.

    During the last phases of the discussions, characters have a proposed allocation for their codepoint, and tests are being performed with fonts created to handle them and other files being built for the test phase. It's certainly not necessary to move again the final allocation of the characters that are finally approved (which would require reqbuilding files and performing again some tests), given that it's nearly sure that a significant number of characters in the pipeline will be present in some next update.

    If you look at the existing proposals, there are more characters in the final steps for standardization. A few characters were approved due to consensus about them and no other pending discussions about them, and it was most probably justified to allow early support of some languages and supporting organizations that needed them (for example to finalize some text corpus databases and permit their distribution and use with standard applications, instead of just with scanned books or PDF). The case of these stressed tones were missing since long for annotating Asian or African phonetic transcriptions.

    Most other characters that fill the holes are part of much larger sets in more complex proposals with various options still being considered. And notably, the modifier letters block is now full with the pending proposals discussed at UTC and WG2 (even if it's not completely refelced in the roadmaps).

    From: "Alan Wood" <alan.wood@JUSTIS.COM>
    >I have started updating my Unicode Resources, and I have a problem with the
    > Latin Extended-D block. According to
    > this block is present in Unicode 5.0.0 and extends from A720 to A7FF.
    > However, when I look at
    > I see this:
    > A800;SYLOTI NAGRI LETTER A;Lo;0;L;;;;;N;;;;;
    > A720 and A721 look as though they should be in Modifier Tone Letters, and
    > there is nothing else in the A720-A7FF range.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 21 2006 - 07:40:57 CDT