Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 13:03:40 +0200
On 28/03/2022 21.03, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
> Peter Brett submitted WG2 N5168 <https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5168R1-ISO10646.pdf> to ISO/IEC WG2 (the WG that produces ISO/IEC 10646) late last year. The paper notes some deficiencies in ISO/IEC 10646 in comparison with the Unicode standard.
>
> The WG2 project editor has since published WG2 N5174 <https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5174-namesaliases.pdf> with a proposed resolution for the concerns raised.
>
> Please review the proposed resolution.
This would change ISO 10646 to normatively refer to NameAliases.txt.
The other normative lists of character names are shown with
the glyph of the character, inline in ISO 10646. If those
names are normative aliases, they should be shown in ISO 10646
in a similar fashion as the names for the glyph-based characters.
There are commas missing around "respectively"
for the "Note 3" replacement.
The "higher-level protocol" that is introduced in 11.5
is an undefined term.
Jens
> Peter Brett submitted WG2 N5168 <https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5168R1-ISO10646.pdf> to ISO/IEC WG2 (the WG that produces ISO/IEC 10646) late last year. The paper notes some deficiencies in ISO/IEC 10646 in comparison with the Unicode standard.
>
> The WG2 project editor has since published WG2 N5174 <https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5174-namesaliases.pdf> with a proposed resolution for the concerns raised.
>
> Please review the proposed resolution.
This would change ISO 10646 to normatively refer to NameAliases.txt.
The other normative lists of character names are shown with
the glyph of the character, inline in ISO 10646. If those
names are normative aliases, they should be shown in ISO 10646
in a similar fashion as the names for the glyph-based characters.
There are commas missing around "respectively"
for the "Note 3" replacement.
The "higher-level protocol" that is introduced in 11.5
is an undefined term.
Jens
Received on 2022-03-29 11:03:45