This page is a compilation of formal public feedback received so far. See Feedback for further information on this issue, how to discuss it, and how to provide feedback.
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 [ESR]
Feedback routed to Editorial Working Group for evaluation [EDC]
Feedback routed to Charts Working Group for evaluation [CHARTS]
Other Reports
(None at this time.)
(None at this time.)
Date/Time: Thu Aug 13 08:38:21 PT 2026
ReportID: ID20260813083821
Name: Ben Scarborough
Report Type: Report Error in Publication/Data
Opt Subject: Bidi_Class of U+218A and U+218B
The current Bidi_Class of U+218A TURNED DIGIT TWO and U+218B TURNED DIGIT THREE is ON. Under rule N1, they will become R when mixed together with U+0030..U+0039 in a right-to-left context. This will cause unexpected visual reordering of the digits in a base-12 number. They should be EN to match the behavior of base-10 digits.
Date/Time: Mon Aug 17 16:08:03 PT 2026
ReportID: ID20260817160803
Name: Ken Lunde
Report Type: Report Error in Publication/Data
Opt Subject: UAX #50 feedback (PRI #556)
I propose that the Vertical_Orientation property value of U+1F201 đ SQUARED KATAKANA KOKO be changed from Tu to U. The character was originally added as an emoji per document L2/09-026R (see the "Square katakanas" table on page 2), and there is no reason why an alternate form would be required for vertical writing. In terms of non-emoji implementations, the broadly-deployed open source Source Han and Noto CJK fonts include a glyph for this symbol, yet do not provide a separate vertical glyph.
Date/Time: Sat Aug 22 10:47:38 PT 2026
ReportID: ID20260822104738
Name: Nug
Report Type: Report Error in Publication/Data
Opt Subject:
Suggestion: can the 18.0 ITA characters Ide and Oin have the soft-dotted property?
Date/Time: Mon June 29 15:15:21 PT 2026
ReportID: ID20260629151521
Name: Clay Johnson
Report Type: PRI feedback
Opt Subject: Restrictive emoji inflation policy concerns
Iâm writing to express concern about the current emoji approval criteria, particularly the idea of âemoji inflationâ and the reluctance to approve medically relevant emojis such as a kidney. The existing process feels overly restrictive and culturally "gatekeepish". The fear of adding too many emojis seems to be preventing the inclusion of symbols that would genuinely help large communitiesâpatients, doctors, caregivers, educators, and public health organizations. A kidney emoji, for example, has clear communication value and would be used by millions of people worldwide who deal with kidney disease, organ donation, dialysis, and medical education. The approval criteria appear to prioritize aesthetic curation over practical communication needs. This creates the impression that Unicode is acting more like a cultural gatekeeper than a standards body serving global communication. I believe this approach is outdated and unnecessarily exclusionary. Iâm asking the Consortium to reconsider the âinflationâ concern and adopt a more inclusive, utilityâfocused approach to emoji approvalâespecially for medically relevant symbols. These emojis serve real people with real needs, and the current criteria make it unnecessarily difficult for them to be represented. I also want to note that the current approval structure appears to rely almost entirely on input from major companies and large organizations. This leaves individual users and smaller communities without meaningful influence, which is not appropriate for something as simple and widely used as emojis. These are small symbols for everyday communication, not highâstakes regulatory decisions or medical approvals. The level of gatekeeping applied to them is literally disproportionate to their actual importance. The committeeâs approach gives the impression of unnecessary exclusivity and an inflated sense of importance around what should be a fun, accessible part of digital communication. The reluctance to approve more emojis â especially medically relevant ones â suggests that the process has become more about maintaining literally unnecessary prestige than serving users. This is not an acceptable dynamic for a standard intended to support global communication. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Date/Time: Wed Sep 09 03:08:27 PT 2026
ReportID: ID20260909030827
Name: Christoph Feck
Report Type: Report Error in Publication/Data
Opt Subject: Block name for "Small Seal" script
There is an inconsistency for the block name for the new "Small Seal" script. In https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-18.0/ the block is called "Small Seal", while in https://www.unicode.org/Public/18.0.0/ the block is called "Seal" in file Blocks.txt There might be other places where the names differ.
Date/Time: Sat Aug 29 07:27:19 PT 2026
ReportID: ID20260829072719
Name: Kang Seonghoon
Report Type: Report Error in Publication/Data
Opt Subject: U+031C refers to a wrong character
In NamesList.txt from UCD 17.0.0:
031C COMBINING LEFT HALF RING BELOW
* IPA: open variety of vowel
x (modifier letter down tack - 02D5)
031D COMBINING UP TACK BELOW
* IPA: vowel raising or closing
x (modifier letter up tack - 02D4)
x (combining up tack above - 1DF5)
031E COMBINING DOWN TACK BELOW
* IPA: vowel lowering or opening
x (modifier letter down tack - 02D5)
x (combining down tack above - 1ADB)
Apparently the reference for U+031E was incorrectly copied to U+031C. In my understanding there is no character
named MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING BELOW (U+02BF is close but different) so the reference should be simply removed.
(None at this time.)