On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 08:56, Peter Brett via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> > Whether adding the latter would turn some "yes" votes into
> > "no" votes in EWG is unknown. Let's ask.
>
> For clarity, any innovation by WG21 that deviates from the UAX31 guideline
> will turn my vote from a 'yes' to a 'no' for P1949.
>
> This is not an area in which WG21 should be innovating. People who think
> that UAX31 is too restrictive and/or not restrictive enough should be
> getting involved in Unicode in order to enhance UAX31.
>

For the record, I very strongly agree.
I further think that exploration of the optional parts of UAX ( allowing
ZW(N)J in specific contexts) should be done in a separate paper and
hopefully by people familiar with the few concerned scripts and their use /
users.


>
> Peter
>
>
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
>