The sections below contain links to permanent feedback documents for the open Public Review Issues as well as other public feedback as of May 5, 2016, since the previous cumulative document was issued prior to UTC #147 (May 2016). Grayed-out items in the Table of Contents do not have feedback here.
The links below go directly to open PRIs and to feedback documents for them, as of January 22, 2016. Gray rows have no feedback to date.
The links below go to locations in this document for feedback.
Date/Time: Fri May 13 15:54:35 CDT 2016
Name: Michael Everson
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: COPYLEFT
Do not call it the COPYLEFT SIGN. This English pun can't be translated. Call it the REVERSED COPYRIGHT SIGN please.
Date/Time: Tue May 17 18:12:54 CDT 2016
Name: Andrea Duffie
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: Dinosaur emojis
Dear Unicode, I recently saw your proposed dinosaur emojis and wanted to encourage you, if possible, to add additional dinosaur emojis in order to better represent the diversity of the greatest animals our planet has ever known, as well as those who love them. I implore you to incorporate multiple dinosaur emojis into your diverse offerings, as a single dinosaur isn't just under-representative of dinosaurs in general, it does a disservice to dinosaur fans across the globe. People's favorite dinosaurs are often as diverse as our personalities. Some of us are raptor or T-Rex people, others are much happier with stegosaurs, triceratops or brachiasaurs. Others prefer more niche species, but each selection is capable of embodying a specific emotion, mindset or action based on society's collective knowledge of dinosaurs. In conclusion, I fully support Andrew West's proposed feedback in regards to a dinosaur emoji set (http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16103-jurassic-fdbk.pdf) and encourage you to adopt the variety of silhouettes that is truly representative of all of dinosauria, as well as the people who love them. Thanks!
Date/Time: Wed May 18 19:16:11 CDT 2016
Name: Tanya
Report Type: Other Question, Problem, or Feedback
Opt Subject: Brown friendship, family emojis - iphone
Hi, I was told to write to the Unicode Consortium regarding extending the skin tones of emojis to include all of the family, friendship emojis that are currently available. Thank you for your consideration, or feedback regarding this issue. Appreciatively, Tanya C.
Date/Time: Tue May 24 10:40:08 CDT 2016
Name: Laura
Report Type: Other Question, Problem, or Feedback
Opt Subject: missing emojis
Hello, I am a happy Whatsapp user and a happy single mum. With my 5 years old son we form a small, but happy family. Pretty disappointed to realize that in Whatsapp 'politically correct' emojis, all sorts of combinations are considered for a family, but not the one-parent ones (by choice, by life). I wrote to Whatsapp about it, but they answered back that they do not create the emojis, as they come from the standard consortium used most commonly. While they appreciate feedback from users, they do not have the ability to make any changes to the current list. This is the reason why I am writing this message: can you please do something about it? Thank you, Laura Badano
Date/Time: Tue May 24 13:38:10 CDT 2016
Name: Courtney Milan
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: Regarding the Jurassic emoji/dinosaur encoding project
Dear Unicode Technical Committee (and emoji subcommittee), As the author of the original Jurassic Emoji proposal, L2/16-072, I'm writing to provide further commentary on my dinosaur emoji proposal based on (a) the public feedback that the UTC has received from both William Overington and Andrew West, and (b) public comments from Andrew West and Ken Lunde suggesting that the UTC is considering encoding only a single representative dinosaur. Overington's suggestion was that the UTC encode 32 dinosaurs (!!) according to scientific taxonomic classifications (!!!). This proposal appeals to my sense of humor and love of dinosaurs, but having the number of encoded dinosaur emoji exceed the number of living reptile emoji would be a suboptimal use of Unicode resources and would place a substantial burden on member-implementers to create emoji that will neither see much use nor provide important communication tools to the public. It would also set an unfortunate precedent for the UTC, lead to increasingly frivolous submissions, and distract from the UTC's substantial and important other commitments to representing languages. My reaction to West's feedback was initially something like this: 😍😍😍 (three heart-eyes emoji, if this doesn't come through on this form). I am a fan of dinosaurs, particularly velociraptors. I would be utterly delighted to have a standalone velociraptor emoji. That being said, the distinctions made in West's proposal would be unlikely to be represented with any degree of accuracy from emoji implementation to emoji implementation. The mission of the UTC is not to encode everyone's favorite dinosaur. The differentiation suggested by West is delightful to my dinosaur-loving heart, but rationally, I cannot imagine that the difference between gallimmus and pachycephalosaurus would be apparent in the 5 millimeter version. Nor do I think that communication will be severely impeded by the lack of the gallimus. My original proposal was for three dinosaurs, and I spent substantial time whittling down the set of dinosaurs to what I felt was a close-to-minimum set required for communication. Even though I am a massive fan of velociraptors (cannot overestimate how massive a fan I am), I specifically chose not to include both the T-Rex and the velociraptor in my proposal. The 5 millimeter emoji for one can be used to represent the other. My choice of three dinosaurs was not based on scientific classification, but on projected communication and cultural meaning. Predatory dinosaurs occupy different cultural and emotional significance than non-armored herbivores, which occupy different representative space than armored dinosaurs. A single representative dinosaur could not be used to show a pack of velociraptors attacking a brontosaurus, because the emoji would not differentiate between predator and prey. All activities for which this stands in as an allegory-- everything from revolutions to riots to internet mobs to journalists going after an easy target--would not be representable in a single-dinosaur emoji world. If all dinosaurs look alike, you can't tell that one of them is going after the other. Collapsing all dinosaurs into a single Barney-like dinosaur is too much collapsing. This would make it impossible to represent dinosaur predator/prey interactions and to use them as a metaphor for the world in which we live. At a very minimum, I believe that there should be representation for both herbivore and predator dinosaurs. I urge the UTC to consider more than one representative dinosaur: at least two (a representative predator and a representative herbivore), and possibly three. Thank you again for your time and consideration, Courtney Milan
Date/Time: Wed Jul 6 03:31:00 CDT 2016
Name: Andrew Dunning
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: N4704R Proposal
As a medievalist, I am thrilled to see the N4704R proposal ( http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15327r-n4704-medieval-punct.pdf ). A number of these characters are absolutely critical to communicating premodern Western texts (e.g. the punctus elevatus is used practically everywhere from about 1000 to 1600), and their absence from Unicode has been inhibiting my work for years; please ensure that this is brought to completion. I am happy to provide advice on their usage if it should be desired. Sincerely, Andrew Dunning Curator of Medieval Historical Manuscripts The British Library
Date/Time: Wed Jul 13 09:58:22 CDT 2016
Name: Andrew West
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: Inconsistent definition of emoji modifier base
Ed Note: This was also forwarded to the emoji subcommittee 2016/07/13.
It seems that there are only five emoji depicting people doing an activity that are not emoji modifier bases: U+26F7 SKIER U+1F3C2 SNOWBOARDER U+1F3C7 HORSE RACING U+1F3CC GOLFER U+1F93A FENCER This is presumably because the people in these activities are usually covered up so that their skin is not visible. However, a survey of implementations shows that this is not necessarily the case, and emoji for each of these four characters may clearly show face, hand or arm skin (a fencer's free hand is normally ungloved, as can be seen from a Google image search). See the examples at: http://emojipedia.org/skier/ http://emojipedia.org/snowboarder/ http://emojipedia.org/horse-racing/ http://emojipedia.org/golfer/ http://emojipedia.org/fencer/ For consistency with other people emoji which may only show a small amount of skin but which are emoji modifier bases (e.g. Sleuth or Spy), and to make the user experience in selecting and using emoji less confusing, I suggest that U+26F7, U+1F3C2, U+1F3C7, U+1F3CC and U+1F93A are all given the emoji modifier base property, and the corresponding skin tone modifier sequences added to emoji-sequences.txt. If an implementation does not show any skin for any of these emoji then any emoji modifier applied to it will simply have no affect.
Date/Time: Mon Jul 18 13:15:03 CDT 2016
Name: John Mayor
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: (Q)OPPA/ KOPPA, AND LATIN CAPITAL AND REGULAR SUPERSCRIPT AND SUBSCRIPT "Qs"
Ed Note: the e-mail address given by the sender cannot be reached.
Dear Unicode Consortium Members!... an Open Letter!:... Would you please ensure that all of the large and small characters within the "List of Unicode Characters (see, Wiki)" that can be listed as superscript and subscript, are included within this List of Unicode Characters, as superscript and subscript! In particular, as the SS/ SS letter "q" is THE ONLY Latin-based "SS/ SS holdout" for inclusion within the Latin-based alphabet, I implore of the Unicode Consortium Members, their due consideration of the incorporation of this "delinquent letter" of the Latin-based alphabet, within the UC "Unicode family" of Unicode characters! Furthermore!... and, in addition to the inclusion of the Latin-based q!... and in the event that such is already under review by UC Members!... I'd also ask-- should ask!-- that the large and small Greek (Q)K_OPPA characters (not to be confused with the Greek Kappa character!) be included, as well, within the List of Latin-based Unicode Characters as an optional SS/ SS backup for q (i.e., inasmuch, as the KOPPA character is presently in CHARACTER LIMBO!... i.e., it is not within the contemporary Greek alphabet!... and so, can be used within the Latin-based script as an optional SS/ SS q-- if not, a PERMANENT REPLACEMENT for q!)! And lastly, as the just aforenoted Wiki List hasn't been amended since 2009!... and as various Unicode issues may already have been addressed, and the requisite Unicode augmentations and additions may already have been effected within the UC!... I'd ask the UC Membership (as such would be more effectual than a BLIND USER!) to undertake a Wickipedia amendment to this severely dated denoted List! Thanks!! ----- Please!... no emails!... just resolve!
Date/Time: Tue Jul 26 08:18:45 CDT 2016
Name: Masaya Nakamura
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: Comment on Hentaigana proposal L2/16-188
While most of the "mother ideographs" are shown in traditional form, #192 HENTAIGANA LETTER HO-8 is described as "Derived From 8C4A 豊", in simplified form. Is it intentional?
Date/Time: Tue Jul 26 12:41:52 CDT 2016
Name: John Cowan
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: L2/16-174 Extra Aspect Symbols for Astrology
I just want to make sure the typo in the name of U+2BFC TRIAGLE WITH EXTENSION gets caught and fixed once and for all. No more FHTORAs!
Date/Time: Tue Jul 26 14:14:34 CDT 2016
Name: John Cowan
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: 16186-half-stars.pdf
In my view, the half-stars and the half-filled stars are never used in the same context, and should be left to fonts to distinguish.
Date/Time: Tue Aug 2 00:07:37 CDT 2016
Name: Cibu Johny
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: On Virama in Vatteluttu proposal (L2/16-068)
The proposal mentions that "Historically, the script did not possess a virāma or puḷḷi for silencing the inherent vowel, but such a sign was introduced at a later time. Consonant clusters are represented linearly. In later sources, each bare consonant in a cluster is marked by placing the virāma above the letter." However, I don't see any concrete evidence for Virama in the plates attached with the proposal. Only entry I see is the table from Siromoney, et al 1976. Even though it says, those characters are from Velvikudi inscription, the scans of the original Velvikudi inscription is not attached to the proposal. So, it is not clear which glyphs are from Velvikudi inscription and which are Siromoney's annotations. My guess is only those letters inside the box are from the inscription. So my suggestion would be to encode only those characters that have clear evidence from the historical plates. Add the remaining characters in the future as the evidence is available.
Date/Time: Tue Aug 2 16:43:24 CDT 2016
Name: Anshuman Pandey
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal
Opt Subject: Support for recommendations in L2/16-224
Hello, For what it is worth, I am writing to support the recommendations made by Shriramana Sharma in L2/16-224 regarding the Grantha one-dotted nukta. All the best, Anshu
Date/Time: Sun Jun 19 11:33:02 CDT 2016
Name: Bünzli Daniel
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 9.0.0 segmentation and line breaks on the empty string
I notice that in 9.0.0, UAX29 segmentations no longer report boundaries on the empty string while UAX14 still does report a hard line break on it. Shouldn't UAX14 also report no breaks on the empty string ?
Date/Time: Wed Jun 22 04:29:58 CDT 2016
Name: Bünzli Daniel
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: UAX #29 9.0.0 Use sot rather than ^
Usage of ^ in the rules is a bit ambiguous since it could well mean that one needs to detect start of lines. It seems that GB12 and WB15 could simply replace ^ by sot. Also the sentence "Grapheme cluster boundaries can be easily tested by looking at immediately adjacent characters" is no longer true. Best, Daniel
Date/Time: Sat Jul 23 17:45:24 CDT 2016
Name: Edwin Taylor
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: Unicode® Technical Standard #39
I was reading through "Unicode® Technical Standard #39" and noticed a
potential problem with section 4.2 as seen here:
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/#Mixed_Script_Confusables
The body text of "Example 2" is:
The set of Cyrillic characters {я} does not have a whole-script confusable
in Latin (there is no Latin character that looks like "я", nor does the
set of Latin characters {o s t u y} have a whole-script confusable in
Cyrillic (there is no Cyrillic character that looks like "t" or "u"). Thus
this string is not a mixed-script confusable.
By counting the parentheses, you can see that there are two "(" characters but
only one ")", so the parentheses are not balanced. My impression is that
there is a ")" character missing immediately before the the first comma.
As I am pointing this out, I should also say that I found that section
slightly hard to follow, possibly because I was misapplying a definition
earlier in the document which states "X and Y are mixed-script confusables if
they are confusable but they are not single-script confusables.". If I can
suggest one way to help clarify the examples in section 4.2, it would be to
add a new example between 2 and 3 which deals with the string "toyѕ-я-uѕ",
which uses the Cyrillic letter "ѕ". I believe this would be a "mixed-script
confusable", and makes an easier contrast against examples 1 and 2, for
completeness.
Finally, as a separate matter, I would like to point out that this online form
(which requires me to submit personally identifiable information) is not
available (and does not send data) over HTTPS. This may not be the correct
place to report that, but I hope you don't mind me pointing it out.
Thank you for your time and good work in supporting the Unicode standards.
Date/Time: Thu May 12 13:52:44 CDT 2016
Name: Roozbeh Pournader
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: Indic Syllabic Category of Khamti logograms U+AA74..U+AA76
Based on comments I received from Martin Hosken through Behdad Esfahbod (see https://github.com/roozbehp/unicode-data/issues/3 ), the three Khamti logograms take tone marks, so they should have an Indic Syllabic Category. Here is the information from the original proposal, at http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2008/08276-khamti-proposal.pdf : "Three logogram characters are also used which can take tone and whose meaning is according to the tone they take. They are used when transcribing speech rather than in formal writing. For example, ˀn takes three tones and means: ꩵႈ negative, ꩵႉ giving and ꩵး yes. hm also takes three different tones and means: ꩶႚ part of no (prefixed by hm negative), ꩶႊ question response marker, ꩶး there. Oay takes two tones and is used when addressing a loved one ꩴႊ or someone far away ꩴး." Based on the information, I believe we need to give the character an Indic Syllabic Category of either Consonant or Consonant_Placeholder. It appears to me that Consonant_Placeholder may be a better class, similar to U+104E MYANMAR SYMBOL AFOREMENTIONED.
Date/Time: Thu Jun 2 08:46:28 CDT 2016
Name: David Corbett
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: Word_Break of U+02D7
U+02D7 MODIFIER LETTER MINUS SIGN’s Word_Break is MidLetter but should be ALetter. Like other IPA modifier letters, it follows the letter it modifies; it does not need a letter after it. Maybe its General_Category should be changed to Modifier_Letter to match U+02D0 MODIFIER LETTER TRIANGULAR COLON.
Date/Time: Fri Jun 10 19:51:43 CDT 2016
Name: Ken Lunde
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: U+1D378 TALLY MARK FIVE representative glyph issue
This is NOT a Unicode Version 9.0 issue. The representative glyph for U+1D378 TALLY MARK FIVE in L2/16-171 (aka WG2 N4729) has two errors, the first of which is critical. The critical error is that the representative glyph has five vertical strokes, but it should have only four. The less critical error is that representative glyph exhibits overlapping subpaths that appear as holes at particular resolutions. See page 49: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16171-n4729-dis5th-amd1.pdf#page=49 The representative glyphs from the original proposals, L2/15-328 and L2/16-065, as used in the documents and as found in the OpenType/CFF fonts that were attached to them did not exhibit these issues. These issues have been relayed to Michael Everson, and are being reported here for the record.