I actually didn't see any of this discussion until today. ( unicode@unicode.org mail was going into my spam folder...) I started reading the thread, but it looks like a lot of it is OT, so just scanned some of them.
A few brief points: 1. There is plenty of time for public comment, since it was targeted at *Unicode 11*, the release for about a year from now, *not* *Unicode 10*, due this year. 2. When the UTC "approves a change", that change is subject to comment, and the UTC can always reverse or modify its approval up until the meeting before release date. *So there are ca. 9 months in which to comment.* 3. The modified text is a set of guidelines, not requirements. So no conformance clause is being changed. - If people really believed that the guidelines in that section should have been conformance clauses, they should have proposed that at some point. - And still can proposal that — as I said, there is plenty of time. Mark On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: > > > I find it shocking that the Unicode Consortium would change a > > widely-implemented part of the standard (regardless of whether Unicode > > itself officially designates it as a requirement or suggestion) on > > such flimsy grounds. > > > > I'd like to register my feedback that I believe changing the best > > practices is wrong. > > Perhaps surprisingly, it's already too late. UTC approved this change > the day after the proposal was written. > > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17103.htm#151-C19 > > -- > Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org > > >