On 11/8/22 3:27 PM, Steven R. Loomis wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Nov 8, 2022, at 1:04 PM, Corentin via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Thomas for the quick response.
>> This is excellent news.
>> We probably want SG16 to confirm the direction as there were some dissident voices.
>> If we decide to move forward, I'm happy to review the terminology/write a paper for that (along with replacing the term translation set if SG16) gets consensus on that.
>>
>> UCS Scalar value => Unicode scalar value
>> character (where we do mean character) => abstract character
>> code point/code unit => unchanged.
>>
>> If we think there are definitions in Unicode that lack precision, I think we can talk to Unicode folks about improving them.
>> In the past we have had to ask iso 10646 to align some definitions with Unicode as important details were missing,
>> so lack of clarity wouldn't become a new problem.
>
> This was going to be my comment as well.
>
> In this discussion and in the linked meeting notes I didn’t see concrete examples of exactly how "the Unicode Standard does not define terms in the same way and at the same level of precision as ISO 10646 does”.
>
> Are there some other examples? Thanks!

No specific examples have been raised or discussed as far as I know. I
am going to add this concern as an agenda topic for a future SG16
telecon. If actionable suggestions for improvements are raised, I'll
ensure such suggestions are communicated to the Unicode Consortium.

Tom.

>
> -Steven