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: Sat Nov 11 22:15:32 CST 2017
Name: Eduardo Marín Silva
Report Type: Feedback on an Encoding Proposal (L2/17-372)
Opt Subject: Missing annotation of COMBINING BINDU BELOW
There is no way to know that this character is meant to be used with the Tamil script (which is essential since it orriginated as a Tamil proposal). Add the note "Used with the tamil script..." with the possible addition of "... along with others"
Date/Time: Sat Dec 9 21:56:38 CST 2017
Name: Eduardo Marín Silva
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: General feedback on DAM 1
A reference to BENGALI SIGN AVAGRAHA should be added to the BENGALI SANDHI MARK, just to clarify that the latter is a combining version of the former. I personally prefer the bigger and bolder version of the ORTHODOX CROSS, because it was harmonious with characters like the WHITE LATIN CROSS. The heading above 2E43 should be changed to "Slavonic punctuation" and the heading above 2E44 should be changed to "Greek byzantine punctuation" and also a note should be added to the same character indicating that it is composed of two stacked acutes. All the glyphs for the mayan numerals should be vertically centered. A note should be added to 1D377 to indicate that repetitions of that character are intended to represent the numbers 2, 3 and 4.
Date/Time: Mon Dec 11 17:25:53 CST 2017
Name: David Corbett
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI #366: Chess symbol annotations
If, as has been asserted, U+2BFA through U+2BFD are used in genealogy, they should have code chart annotations explaining what they are for, like the current annotations for their use in chess. Without annotations, I can’t guess what “passed” or “doubled” might mean in a genealogical context.
Date/Time: Mon Dec 11 17:33:38 CST 2017
Name: David Corbett
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI #366: U+2E4E PUNCTUS ELEVATUS MARK
U+2E4E PUNCTUS ELEVATUS MARK has the note “indicates a minor medial pause where the sense is complete but the meaning is not”. While “sense” and “meaning” aren’t perfect synonyms, the fine distinction made here eludes me. The note should be reworded for clarity.
Date/Time: Sat Jan 6 11:54:42 CST 2018
Name: Charlotte Buff
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI #366: Glyph of WATER CLOSET
The proposed representative glyph change for U+1F6BE 🚾 WATER CLOSET seems ill-advised. There already exist both U+1F14F 🅏 SQUARED WC and U+1F18F 🆏 NEGATIVE SQUARED WC. Making U+1F6BE look identical to U+1F18F will only lead to ambiguity. The UTC should instead recommend against the common practice among emoji vendors to display U+1F6BE as squared letters so that the semantics of the three characters remain clearly defined. They were all added at the same time in Unicode 6 so it was probably very much a deliberate choice to contrast the more pictographic WATER CLOSET with the squared phrases.
Date/Time: Sat Jan 13 01:57:38 CST 2018
Name: SHEN Yilei
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: Feedback on DAM 1
Mongolian: 1. 1st Isolates (p. 27) "All vowels are expected to have explicit isolate forms, while for consonant the isolate first form is the initial first form unless specified otherwise." This statement is incorrect if IS 10646:2017 is to follow TR170's specifications. Actually, some vowels (1844 185F) are unspecified for isolate forms, while most consonants (other than 182C 182D 184E 1863 1864 1865 1874 1889) are unspecified for isolate forms. The editors are referred to WG2 N4884 (L2/17-332) for a summary of isolate specifications per TR170. For the reason above, I suggest that this sentence be deleted from the notice line, and that all letters unspecified for isolate forms be explicitly notated in the variation line, just like initial, medial, and final gaps are. 2. "Contextual variants" (p. 33) "Contextual Variants and Standardized Variation Sequences" "Contextual vatiants" or "in-context variants" is an established term of Mongolian encoding, in contrast to "out-of-context variants". As the chart seemingly does not intend to exclude out-of-context variants from the specifications, I believe that "Positional Forms and Standardized Variation Sequences" would be a better subhead free of misinterpretation, given that the term "positional form" is already used in Core Spec. of TUS10. Miscellaneous: 3. 1FA67 XIANGQI BLACK GENERAL (p. 150) 1FA67 = hēi jiāng "將/将" has a couple of readings: jiāng, jiàng, and qiāng. In Xiangqi terminology, 將/将 has two different usages. When it means the black general, it is pronounced as jiàng; when it means to check or Check!, it is pronounced as jiāng. Therefore it should be = hēi jiàng (hēi = black). 4. Rendering issues (p. 59) 2B59 HEAVY CIRCLED SALTIRE (p. 62) 2BD2 GROUP MARK (p. 64) 2E28 LEFT DOUBLE PARENTHESIS (p. 65) 2E3D VERTICAL SIX DOTS 2E3E WIGGLY VERTICAL LINE (p. 80) 1109A KAITHI LETTER DDDHA 1109C KAITHI LETTER RHA 110AB KAITHI LETTER VA (p. 82) 1112E CHAKMA VOWEL SIGN O 1112F CHAKMA VOWEL SIGN AU (p. 85) 1134B GRANTHA VOWEL SIGN OO 1134C GRANTHA VOWEL SIGN AU (p. 144) 1F78B ROUND TARGET Rendering is problematic in some of the lines under the above-mentioned characters.