The sections below contain links to permanent feedback documents for the open Public Review Issues as well as other public feedback as of October 6, 2019, since the previous cumulative document was issued prior to UTC #160 (July 2019).
The links below go directly to open PRIs and to feedback documents for them, as of October 6, 2019.
The links below go to locations in this document for feedback.
Feedback to UTC / Encoding Proposals
Feedback on UTRs / UAXes
Error Reports
Other Reports
(None at this time.)
(None at this time.)
Date/Time: Tue Oct 1 19:16:39 CDT 2019
Name: Geva Patz
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: Possible error in description of U+2101
Unicode code point U+2101, '℁', introduced in version 4.0 of the standard in the 'lettterlike symbols' block, bears the description 'addressed to the subject'. I can find no evidence of the use of such an abbreviation in English. However, in French, the phrase 'aux (bons) soins de', equivalent to the English '(in) care of', is abbreviated 'a/s de', or sometimes just 'a/s', equivalently to the English 'c/o'. Given that this symbol exists in the same code block as code point U+2105, '℅' – 'care of'. I believe that the description in the standard may be erroneous and should be updated to 'aux soins de' to reflect the actual usage of the abbreviation.
Date/Time: Tue Oct 1 20:12:20 CDT 2019
Name: David Corbett
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: Unclear definition of Alphabetic for marks
The description of Alphabetic in chapter 4 does not make clear under what circumstances a combining character should have Alphabetic=Yes. Vowel signs and other such marks that represent their own sounds are Alphabetic, but the rest is unclear. Some combining versions of Alphabetic bases are Alphabetic even if they don’t represent their own sounds. It is very inconsistent though. For example, U+1DEA COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA does not represent its own sound but is used with a base vowel letter to represent an intermediate vowel sound, yet it is Alphabetic; U+1DDC COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER K is basically its own letter that is written combining to denote an abbreviation or just to save space, yet is is not Alphabetic.
Date/Time: Tue Oct 1 20:14:01 CDT 2019
Name: David Corbett
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: Inconsistencies in Diacritic
The following pairs of sets are inconsistent about whether Diacritic is Yes or No and should be reviewed. • U+0300 COMBINING GRAVE ACCENT and U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT vs. U+1DC0 COMBINING DOTTED GRAVE ACCENT and U+1DC1 COMBINING DOTTED ACUTE ACCENT • U+035D COMBINING DOUBLE BREVE and U+0361 COMBINING DOUBLE INVERTED BREVE vs. U+035C COMBINING DOUBLE BREVE BELOW and U+1DFC COMBINING DOUBLE INVERTED BREVE BELOW • U+05A2 HEBREW ACCENT ATNAH HAFUKH vs. all other Hebrew accents • U+082C SAMARITAN VOWEL SIGN SUKUN, U+0AFA GUJARATI SIGN SUKUN, and U+1123E KHOJKI SIGN SUKUN vs. U+0652 ARABIC SUKUN and U+07B0 THAANA SUKUN • U+0AFB GUJARATI SIGN SHADDA and U+11237 KHOJKI SIGN SHADDA vs. U+0651 ARABIC SHADDA • U+1ABB COMBINING PARENTHESES ABOVE vs. U+1ABE COMBINING PARENTHESES OVERLAY • U+1BE6 BATAK SIGN TOMPI and U+1133B COMBINING BINDU BELOW vs. all other nuktas • U+1DCA COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER R BELOW and Devanagari and Grantha combining letters vs. other combining Latin letters, and Cyrillic, Glagolitic, and Old Permic combining letters • U+1DF8 COMBINING DOT ABOVE LEFT vs. U+0358 COMBINING DOT ABOVE RIGHT • U+A8F1 COMBINING DEVANAGARI SIGN AVAGRAHA vs. combining avagrahas called SANDHI MARKs • [:ccc=9:] in some scripts vs. [:ccc=9:] in other scripts Additionally, the following are clearly “Characters that linguistically modify the meaning of another character to which they apply” and so should have Diacritic=Yes: • U+035A COMBINING DOUBLE RING BELOW • the Mandaic diacritics U+0859 through U+085B • the Kharoshthi diacritics U+10A38 through U+10A3A • U+11A33 ZANABAZAR SQUARE FINAL CONSONANT MARK • U+1BC9D DUPLOYAN THICK LETTER SELECTOR • SignWriting head shapes
Date/Time: Mon Jul 22 03:47:50 CDT 2019
Name: Denis Moyogo Jacquerye
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: Preferred rendering of U+0162, U+0163
In The Unicode Standard version 12.0, Table 7-1 entitled "Preferred Rendering of Cedilla versus Comma Below" on page 290 shows the letters c, e, h, s in the column for letters that bear a cedilla that should look like a traditional cedilla and the letter d, g, k, l, n, r, t in the column for letters that bear a cedilla that should look like a comma below. The t should not be in the comma below column but in the cedilla column. The glyphs for the characters U+0162 and U+0163 already has a cedila in the Unicode charts. The characters U+015E LATIN CAPITAL LETTER S WITH CEDILLA, U+015F LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH CEDILLA, U+0162 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER T WITH CEDILLA, U+0163 LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH CEDILLA were to be used in Romanian before the addition of U+0218 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER S WITH COMMA BELOW, U+0219 LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH COMMA BELOW, U+021A LATIN CAPITAL LETTER T WITH COMMA BELOW, U+021B LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH COMMA BELOW. Concerning Romanian, there is no reason why s and t should not be in the same column in Table 7-1. T with cedilla is used with a cedilla in the Gagauze language orthography along with c cedilla and s cedilla, an orthography officialized by the Moldovan governement in Hotărîrea Parlamentului Nr. 1421 din 13-05-1993, pentru trecerea scrisului limbii găgăuze la grafia latină and Hotărîrea Parlamentului Nr. Nr. 816 din 24-04-1996, privind modificarea şi completarea Hotărîrii Parlamentului pentru trecerea scrisului limbii găgăuze la grafia latină. T with cedilla is used with a cedilla in the Manjaku language orthography and the Makanya language orthography along with s cedilla, two orthographies officialized by the Senegalese government in Décret no 2005-983 du 21 octobre 2005 relatif à l’orthographe et à la séparation des mots en manjakú and Décret n° 2005-984 du 21 octobre 2005 relatif à l'orthographe et à la séparation des mots en mankaañ. T with cedilla has been used with a cedilla in the UN recommended romanization for Arabic originaly created in 1972: http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/obs_rom_vers/rom1_ar_v4_0.htm. Note that this romanization used other letters with cedilla and has been replaced by a 2017 romanization which doesn’t use cedillas anymore.
Date/Time: Thu Aug 29 13:30:11 CDT 2019
Name: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: There should be a warning about inserting a BOM
Section 23.8 Special of http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode12.0.0/UnicodeStandard-12.0.pdf should warn against inserting a byte order mark at the beginning of a file unless the application reading the file is known to accept it. Note that there is a warning in the FAQ.