Hi Jens,

Thanks for your feedback and for helping me to improve the paper!

Best regards,

            Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_gmx.net>
> Sent: 29 November 2021 13:19
>
> On 29/11/2021 13.59, Peter Brett wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]x.net>
> >> 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.