I'm not sure if it merits formal feedback, but would it be a good idea to cross reference IDEOGRAPHIC TALLY MARK FIVE to CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-6B63? They are effectively visually identical (in fact I was under the impression they were the same thing).
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rick McGowan <[email protected]> wrote: > The UTC would appreciate feedback on new repertoire that is currently > under ballot for future additions to ISO/IEC 10646. This includes > repertoire that has already been reviewed and approved by the UTC, but > which will not be published until next year, as part of Version 10.0 of the > Unicode Standard. > > This is your opportunity to review the planned new repertoire for possible > problems, and to make any suggestions you might have about improvements for > glyphs or character names. > > See PRI #327 <http://www.unicode.org/review/pri327/> and PRI #328 > <http://www.unicode.org/review/pri328/> for details on access to the > draft repertoire documents for review, and for how to provide your > feedback. The characters of interest -- the new repertoire under ballot -- > are highlighted in yellow in the code charts in those documents. Glyph > corrections or improvements in the charts are highlighted in a light blue. > > Note that we already know about the mistaken glyph for the new character > U+1D378 TALLY MARK FIVE, so you do not need to report that problem again! > Note also that a few of the characters for review in PRI #328, including > the 72 new emoji characters, have been accelerated for publication in > Unicode 9.0. The UTC will not be able to respond to further feedback on > those 9.0 characters, which are already frozen for publication. > >
