Re: Unicode 5.2 beta question

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Tue Jun 23 2009 - 15:46:53 CDT

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: Unicode 5.2 beta question"

    Leo Broukhis wrote:

    > I've tried commenting on the Unicode 5.2 beta using the online form
    > but it seems to be a bit bucket.

    The online form is a *big* bucket, but not a bit bucket.

    As the beta page notes: "The comment period ends August 3, 2009.
    All substantive comments must be received by that date
    for consideration at the next UTC meeting. ..."

    Beta feedback is collected and delivered to the UTC for
    consideration. All feedback is reviewed and decisions are
    taken and reported on afterwards.

    This process is different from what people might expect, in that
    it isn't a *mailing list* making consensus decisions, but
    rather a committee collecting input, and then considering
    and deciding.

    If you want to *discuss* issues about the beta on a mailing
    list, then by all means, you can come here and discuss them
    on the unicode email list. But I just want to set the
    expectations correctly -- just because you don't hear back
    immediately regarding some input on the beta review submitted
    in the online form, don't assume that your feedback is being
    ignored. It just has to be collected together for the
    August UTC meeting for decision.
    > I've noticed two issues:
    > 1. The index has not been rebuilt and misses new characters:
    > Index-5.2.0d1.txt 16-Sep-2008 14:53 145K

    This, by the way, is known and deliberate. Updating the
    character index for the standard is a time-intensive
    process which is done asynchronously with the rest of
    the data file update. The only reason the Index-5.2.0d1.txt
    was posted early was to incorporate the small data corruption
    noted for a couple of entries in the 5.1.0 Index.txt file.
    The addition of new character entries to the index will
    appear in due time.

    > 2. (Beating my own drum here)
    > In
    > shouldn't U+23E8 be Grapheme_Base # Sm instead of So (as per the proposal)?

    Possibly. The UTC will decide.


    > Thanks,
    > Leo

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 23 2009 - 15:49:50 CDT