On 29/11/2021 13.59, Peter Brett wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>
>> Sent: 29 November 2021 12:48

>> Beyond that, I believe the reference to "higher-level protocol"
>> in the proposed resolution is underspecified; I don't know what
>> a "higher-level protocol" is.
>
> I don't consider that to be within the scope of the defect report, which is
> to bring ISO 10646 into alignment with the Unicode Standard. However, I'll
> add an additional comment that perhaps "higher-level protocol" could be more
> specifically defined. If this is of particular concern perhaps it would be
> best to start by getting it more precisely defined in the Unicode Standard.

Well, from a WG21 perspective, I couldn't care less about the Unicode
Standard. The only thing that matters is ISO 10646. Since ISO 10646
and the Unicode Standard already differ substantially (and not only in
the aspects mention in your paper), I don't care for the wording
alignment in the particular area you've highlighted.
All I care about is a precisely-written ISO 10646, regardless of whether
that happens because wording from the Unicode Standard has been copied
that is precise or because new precise wording has been invented.

>> Beyond that, Note 3 in section 12 of ISO 10646:2020 (not Note 2 as
>> mentioned in the paper) suggests "0007 BELL", which is ambiguous
>> with U+1F514 BELL. This should use "ALERT" instead.
>
> I will add an additional issue.

Your paper refers to that note and suggests to copy its contents
as a workaround; I'm saying this suggestion is flawed because the
note is technically flawed.

Jens