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: Thu Dec 31 17:50:56 CST 2020
Name: asmus
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: UAX#39 wording issues
In Table 1 of UAX#39 there are obfuscatory and possibly incorrect uses of “explicit”. In the definition of “Limited_Use” the text and no explicit script from Table 5, Recommended Scripts. Should be changed to and no script from Table 5, Recommended Scripts, other than “Common” or “Inherited”. That way, the reader does not have to hunt for the definition of “explicit” script in UAX#24. Because “explicit” is not capitalized, it cannot be understood by the reader as a defined term, so anyone not familiar with UAX#24, will not even understand that it means anything different than “explicitly listed in Table 5”. Also, if it is desired to make it a defined term, it should be given an actual (numbered) definition in UAX#24, not simply a gloss. Likewise for Excluded the language: and no explicit script from Table 7, Limited Use Scripts or Table 5, Recommended Scripts. should be changed to and no script from Table 7, Limited Use Scripts or Table 5, Recommended Scripts, other than “Common” or “Inherited”. In the definition of Recommended, the text containing an explicit script in Table 5, Recommended Scripts in [UAX31], except for those characters that are Restricted above. appears to rule out the ASCII digits or indeed combining marks as part of identifiers (script=Common or inherited). Here the remedy would simply be to drop the word “explicit”. While making the change, there is an inconsistency between the phrasing of the description of Limited_Use and Recommended. Compare: Characters from scripts that are in limited use: with Script_Extensions values containing a script in Table 7, Limited Use Scripts in [UAX31], and no explicit script from Table 5, Recommended Scripts. to Characters with Script_Extensions values containing an explicit script in Table 5, Recommended Scripts in [UAX31], except for those characters that are Restricted above. It would make the intent clearer if the description echoed the rationale for making a script recommended. As follows: Characters from scripts that are in everyday common use: with Script_Extensions values containing a script in Table 5, Recommended Scripts in [UAX31], except for those characters that are Restricted above.
Feedback above this line was reviewed before or during UTC #166
Date/Time: Sun May 23 12:29:13 CDT 2021
Name: asmus
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: PRI 423: Incorrect Identifier Type for Khmer
The Identifier_Type values for certain Khmer characters appear questionable in light of their support for domain names in the DNS Root Zone. U+17CB ់ Khmer KHMER SIGN BANTOC U+17CC ៌ Khmer KHMER SIGN ROBAT U+17CD ៍ Khmer KHMER SIGN TOANDAKHIAT U+17D0 ័ Khmer KHMER SIGN SAMYOK SANNYA See: Root Zone Label Generation Rules for the Khmer Script (und-Khmr) on icann.org and documents cited therein Proposal for Khmer Script Root Zone LGR, 15 August 2016, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposal-khmer-lgr-15aug16-en.pdf The document referenced for inclusion of these characters cites the following source, which seems to strongly contradict a "technical use" classification [204] PRIMARY SCHOOL GRADE 1, MOEYS, ISBN 9-789-995-001-674, Publication 2015, Figure 2 These are also supported in ICANN's Reference LGR for the Second Level. https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/lgr/lgr-second-level-khmer-script-15dec20-en.html