On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 06:14:45 +0200 (CEST), I wrote(1): > I note that now that the Unicode repertoire is built at cruise speed, > few to no feedback items are reported.[1][2] > [1] http://www.unicode.org/review/pri327/feedback.html > [2] http://www.unicode.org/review/pri328/feedback.html
It seems to happen that while many characters provided in Amendment 1 (PDAM) to ISO/IEC 10646:2016 (5th edition) didnʼt make it into Unicode so far, many others that are now in beta didnʼt show up in draft additional repertoire for ISO/IEC 10646:2016 (5th edition) DIS, neither. That is enough of an explanation why to date, the UTC is facing a number of feedback items requesting name changes and even code point swapping,(2) that otherwise is considered not actionable.(3) Iʼd suggest to provide for each character enough descriptors—if not in the name, so at least in the aliases—so as to avoid any ambiguity.(4) (At my level, Iʼm implementing almost all feedback on PRI#350 when localizing the data for human reading. Including name changes.) Regards, Marcel (1) http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m07/0002.html (2) http://www.unicode.org/review/pri350/ (3) http://www.unicode.org/review/index.html#feedback (4) http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2017-m03/0087.html
