Le 11/09/2013 21:35, Whistler, Ken a écrit :
The two currently relevant documents are:
Draft repertoire for FDAM2 of ISO/IEC 10646:2012 (3rd edition) (WG2 N4458):
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2013/13150-n4458.pdf
and
Draft additional repertoire for ISO/IEC 10646:2014 (4th edition) (WG2 N4459)
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2013/13151-n4459.pdf
The first of those is for an FDAM ballot. That is a non-technical "approval"
ballot,
and that means that it is too late to be commenting on code points or
character names for that one. Those characters are *already* a done deal,
and are committed (eventually) for Unicode 7.0.
I have a specific question on the "too late to be commented" n4458 FDAM
document. It concerns cuneiform numbers, and more specifically the
absent CUNEIFORM SIGN U U (aka cuneiform 20)
This "missing" character has been discussed here last year, and Ken
Whistler gave the rational for several related encoding decision here
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2012-m04/0177.html and
stated that the omission of the character was voluntary, citing a
document by Steve Tinney.
Since then, it has been proposed by Steve Tinney and Michael Everson in
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12207-n4277-cuneiform-add.pdf as
U+12399. Steve Tinney is also author of a page at the ORACC project
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/doc/builder/math/ where this character is
listed in the "stacking patterns need[ing]" to be added to Unicode,
among others which will be added as U+12469 and following.
However, this character 12399 is absent from the ballot, which stops the
additions in the cuneiform block at 12398. What is the rational for
omitting this character ? Stability with "legacy" encoding (i.e.
pre-unicode 7) ?
Frédéric
