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.
Date/Time: Mon Dec 5 14:18:04 CST 2016
Name: David Corbett
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI #340: Inconsistent bidi classes
Bidi classes are inconsistent between similar characters. For example, U+3373 SQUARE AU is L and U+32CE SQUARE EV is ON. They are both Latin-letter unit symbols fit into ideographic squares, so there is no bidi-relevant difference between them and they should have the same bidi class. The list of inconsistencies: • parenthesized Hangul: U+3200..321C vs. U+321D..321E • circled Hangul: U+3260..327B vs. U+327C..327E • Latin letters in ideographic squares: U+3250, U+32CC..32CF, U+3377..337A, U+33DE..33DF, U+33FF vs. U+3371..3376, U+3380..33DD, U+1F190 • ancient Greek symbols: U+10140..1018C vs. U+1018D..1018E
Feedback above this line was reviewed during UTC #150, January 2017.
Date/Time: Fri Mar 31 12:48:39 CDT 2017
Name: Ken Whistler
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: UAX #9 (PRI #340) Suggestion
In Section 5.1 of PU-UAX #9 for Unicode 10.0, please correct the text to indicate that *both* a C and a Java reference implementation are available. Also, the mention of the bidi demo utility in the same paragraph should be (at least) moved into a separate paragraph and strongly hedged, because the current demo utility is stuck at UBA 6.2, with no immediate prospects for update, and also does not handle supplemental characters correctly. Mention here in the text of UAX #9 should include the appropriate warnings, *before* people click through and find problems with the utility and discover that it is seriously down-level and non-conformant.