On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 08:56, Peter Brett via SG16 <sg16@lists.isocpp.org> 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@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16