Re: Submissions open for 2020 Emoji

[Manish Goregaokar via Unicode]

It would also be useful if "Added to larger set" mentioned which proposal
it was added to.

Last December I proposed emojification for U+1F58E LEFT WRITING HAND, and
that's marked as merged but it's unclear which proposal it was merged with.
(Also the document isn't on L2 yet, I'm not sure why)


Thanks,

-Manish

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:59 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:

> BTW, Slide 23 on http://unicode.org/emoji/slides.html ("Unicode
> Resources: Specs, Data, and Code") shows one view of the relative sizes of
> Unicode Consortium projects, divided up by cldr, icu, encoding (eg UTC
> output), and also breaks out emoji.
>
> (It does need a bit of updating, since we have added emoji names to cldr.)
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Mark Davis ☕️  wrote:
>
>> > imagine I discover that someone has already proposed the emoji that I
>> am interested in
>>
>> In some cases we've have contacted people to see if they want to engage
>> with other proposers. But to handle larger numbers we'd need a simple,
>> light-weight way to let people know, while maintaining people's privacy
>> when they want it.
>>
>> > Also, there seems to be no systematic reason...
>>
>> The ESC periodically prioritizes some of the larger sets and forwards a
>> list to the UTC.
>>
>> >If an emoji proposal is well-formed and fits the general scope it
>> should be forwarded to UTC.
>>
>> Emoji are a relatively small part of the work of the consortium, and
>> should remain that way. So the UTC depends on the ESC to evaluate the
>> quality and priority of proposals, based on the factors described.
>>
>> > Others are outdated, for instance because the larger set they have
>> been added to has already been processed by UTC and they were declined.
>> Some categories have only a single entry, others are clearly aliases of
>> each other or subcategories.
>> > I would like to help clean up the data, e.g. by commenting on the
>> Google Spreadsheet that is embedded on the Unicode page. How can I do that
>> as an individual member?
>>
>> That would be helpful, thanks. What I would suggest is taking a copy of
>> the sheet, dumping into a spreadsheet (Google or Excel) and adding a column
>> for your suggestions. You can then submit that. Note that the numbers are
>> just to provide a count, there is no binding connection between them and
>> the rest of the line.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Christoph Päper via Unicode <
>> unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
>>
>>> announceme...@unicode.org:
>>> >
>>> > The emoji subcommittee has also produced a new page which shows the
>>> > Emoji Requests 
>>> > submitted so far. You can look at what other people have proposed or
>>> > suggested. In many cases, people have made suggestions, but have not
>>> > followed through with complete submission forms, or have submitted
>>> > forms, but not followed through on requested modifications to the
>>> forms.
>>>
>>> This good news! However, imagine I discover that someone has already
>>> proposed the emoji that I am interested in, but their formal proposal needs
>>> some work: From the public data I can not see when this proposal has been
>>> received or whether it has been updated. Since I also cannot contact the
>>> author, either I have to hope they are still working on the proposal or I
>>> have to submit a separate proposal of my own, duplicating all the work.
>>>
>>> Also, there seems to be no systematic reason for which proposals get
>>> shelved as "Added to larger set" while related ones (e.g. random animals)
>>> progress to the UTC. The ESC should not have this power of gatekeeping. If
>>> an emoji proposal is well-formed and fits the general scope it should be
>>> forwarded to UTC, hence be published in the L2 repository. Alternatively,
>>> the ESC should collect *all* proposals that semantically belong to a larger
>>> set (e.g. animals) in a composite document and forward this annually, for
>>> instance.
>>>
>>> Some entries are also opaque or ambiguous, i.e. not helpful, e.g.:
>>>
>>> 705 Six Chinese Styles  Added to larger set Mixed
>>> 706 Six Chinese-style Emoji No proposal formOther
>>>
>>> Others are outdated, for instance because the larger set they have been
>>> added to has already been processed by UTC and they were declined. Some
>>> categories have only a single entry, others are clearly aliases of each
>>> other or subcategories. I would like to help clean up the data, e.g. by
>>> commenting on the Google Spreadsheet that is embedded on the Unicode page.
>>> How can I do that as an individual member?
>>>
>>
>>
>

corrupted document with oracle bone script

[Roman Chrenko via Unicode]

Hello.

I found out that document 
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15280-n4687-oracle-bone.pdf is corrupted.

It is a proposal for inclusion of Oracle Bone Script into ISO/IEC 10646 
standard. It is corrupted from page 163.

Could someone replace the document with the correct one?

 

Roman

 

Re: Is the Editor's Draft public?

[Ken Whistler via Unicode]

Henri,

There is no formal concept of a public "Editor's Draft" for the Unicode 
core specification. This is mostly the result of the tools used for 
editing the core specification, which is still structured more like a 
book than the usual online internet specification.


Currently the Unicode editors are finishing up the 11.0 core 
specification editing -- and the chapters for that will be available in 
June, 2018, as noted on the current draft of the Unicode 11.0 page. 
There is no Version 12.0 "Editor's Draft" right now; instead, work on 
the 12.0 core specification will start once the 11.0 chapters have been 
frozen and published.


If you have feedback on the core specification, the best thing to do is 
simply to submit it now as part of the current 11.0 beta review, 
referring to the published 10.0 core specification text. If it is a 
small item, such as a typo, there is always the possibility that it has 
already been reported and fixed, of course -- but it won't hurt to 
report and check. Suggestions for larger changes in the text will be 
added to the pile for future consideration by the UTC and the editors, 
and likely would be taken up for the 12.0 core specification.


--Ken


On 4/20/2018 3:14 AM, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote:

Thank you. I checked this review announcement (I should have said so
in my email; sorry), but it leads me to
https://unicode.org/versions/Unicode11.0.0/  which says the chapters
will be "Available June 2018". But even if the 11.0 chapters were
available, I'd expect there to exist an Editor's Draft that's now in a
post-11.0 but pre-12.0 state.

I guess I should just send my comments and take the risk of my
concerns already having been addressed.

Re: Is the Editor's Draft public?

[Henri Sivonen via Unicode]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Martin J. Dürst
 wrote:
> On 2018/04/20 18:12, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>
>> There was an announcement for a public review period just recently. The
>> review period is up to the 23rd of April. I'm not sure whether the
>> announcement is up somewhere on the Web, but I'll forward it to you
>> directly.
>
> Sorry, found the Web address of the announcement at the very bottom of the
> mail: http://blog.unicode.org/2018/04/last-call-on-unicode-110-review.html

Thank you. I checked this review announcement (I should have said so
in my email; sorry), but it leads me to
https://unicode.org/versions/Unicode11.0.0/ which says the chapters
will be "Available June 2018". But even if the 11.0 chapters were
available, I'd expect there to exist an Editor's Draft that's now in a
post-11.0 but pre-12.0 state.

I guess I should just send my comments and take the risk of my
concerns already having been addressed.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
https://hsivonen.fi/

Re: Is the Editor's Draft public?

[Martin J. Dürst via Unicode]

On 2018/04/20 18:12, Martin J. Dürst wrote:

There was an announcement for a public review period just recently. The 
review period is up to the 23rd of April. I'm not sure whether the 
announcement is up somewhere on the Web, but I'll forward it to you 
directly.


Sorry, found the Web address of the announcement at the very bottom of 
the mail: 
http://blog.unicode.org/2018/04/last-call-on-unicode-110-review.html


Regards,   Martin.

Re: Is the Editor's Draft public?

[Martin J. Dürst via Unicode]

Hello Henri,

On 2018/04/20 17:15, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote:

Is the Editor's Draft of the Unicode Standard visible publicly?

Use case: Checking if things that I might send feedback about have
already been addressed since the publication of Unicode 10.0.


There was an announcement for a public review period just recently. The 
review period is up to the 23rd of April. I'm not sure whether the 
announcement is up somewhere on the Web, but I'll forward it to you 
directly.


Regards,   Martin.

Re: Submissions open for 2020 Emoji

[Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode]

BTW, Slide 23 on http://unicode.org/emoji/slides.html ("Unicode Resources:
Specs, Data, and Code") shows one view of the relative sizes of Unicode
Consortium projects, divided up by cldr, icu, encoding (eg UTC output), and
also breaks out emoji.

(It does need a bit of updating, since we have added emoji names to cldr.)

Mark

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Mark Davis ☕️  wrote:

> > imagine I discover that someone has already proposed the emoji that I
> am interested in
>
> In some cases we've have contacted people to see if they want to engage
> with other proposers. But to handle larger numbers we'd need a simple,
> light-weight way to let people know, while maintaining people's privacy
> when they want it.
>
> > Also, there seems to be no systematic reason...
>
> The ESC periodically prioritizes some of the larger sets and forwards a
> list to the UTC.
>
> >If an emoji proposal is well-formed and fits the general scope it should
> be forwarded to UTC.
>
> Emoji are a relatively small part of the work of the consortium, and
> should remain that way. So the UTC depends on the ESC to evaluate the
> quality and priority of proposals, based on the factors described.
>
> > Others are outdated, for instance because the larger set they have been
> added to has already been processed by UTC and they were declined. Some
> categories have only a single entry, others are clearly aliases of each
> other or subcategories.
> > I would like to help clean up the data, e.g. by commenting on the Google
> Spreadsheet that is embedded on the Unicode page. How can I do that as an
> individual member?
>
> That would be helpful, thanks. What I would suggest is taking a copy of
> the sheet, dumping into a spreadsheet (Google or Excel) and adding a column
> for your suggestions. You can then submit that. Note that the numbers are
> just to provide a count, there is no binding connection between them and
> the rest of the line.
>
> Mark
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Christoph Päper via Unicode <
> unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
>
>> announceme...@unicode.org:
>> >
>> > The emoji subcommittee has also produced a new page which shows the
>> > Emoji Requests 
>> > submitted so far. You can look at what other people have proposed or
>> > suggested. In many cases, people have made suggestions, but have not
>> > followed through with complete submission forms, or have submitted
>> > forms, but not followed through on requested modifications to the forms.
>>
>> This good news! However, imagine I discover that someone has already
>> proposed the emoji that I am interested in, but their formal proposal needs
>> some work: From the public data I can not see when this proposal has been
>> received or whether it has been updated. Since I also cannot contact the
>> author, either I have to hope they are still working on the proposal or I
>> have to submit a separate proposal of my own, duplicating all the work.
>>
>> Also, there seems to be no systematic reason for which proposals get
>> shelved as "Added to larger set" while related ones (e.g. random animals)
>> progress to the UTC. The ESC should not have this power of gatekeeping. If
>> an emoji proposal is well-formed and fits the general scope it should be
>> forwarded to UTC, hence be published in the L2 repository. Alternatively,
>> the ESC should collect *all* proposals that semantically belong to a larger
>> set (e.g. animals) in a composite document and forward this annually, for
>> instance.
>>
>> Some entries are also opaque or ambiguous, i.e. not helpful, e.g.:
>>
>> 705 Six Chinese Styles  Added to larger set Mixed
>> 706 Six Chinese-style Emoji No proposal formOther
>>
>> Others are outdated, for instance because the larger set they have been
>> added to has already been processed by UTC and they were declined. Some
>> categories have only a single entry, others are clearly aliases of each
>> other or subcategories. I would like to help clean up the data, e.g. by
>> commenting on the Google Spreadsheet that is embedded on the Unicode page.
>> How can I do that as an individual member?
>>
>
>

Is the Editor's Draft public?

[Henri Sivonen via Unicode]

Is the Editor's Draft of the Unicode Standard visible publicly?

Use case: Checking if things that I might send feedback about have
already been addressed since the publication of Unicode 10.0.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
https://hsivonen.fi/

Re: Submissions open for 2020 Emoji

[Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode]

If you want, you can make a proposal to the effect that all proposals made
to the Unicode be hosted publicly in a place accessible the unicode site.
Then the UTC can consider your proposal.

I think it would help the discussion to provide in your proposal links to
policy statements from the W3C, ICANN, etc. that follow that policy. (I'm
not sure exactly what you encompass in your term "public standard": for
example, would you include ISO in that list, even though people have to pay
for (most of) theirs?)

Mark

Mark

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Asmus Freytag (c) 
wrote:

> On 4/19/2018 9:36 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote:
>
> The UTC didn't want to burden the doc registry with all the emoji
> proposals.
>
>
> The question of whether the registry should be divided is independent on
> whether proposals are public or private in nature.
>
> Proposals in private have no place in the context of public standard.
>
> A./
>
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode <
> unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/2018 5:32 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote:
>>
>> > imagine I discover that someone has already proposed the emoji that I
>> am interested in
>>
>> In some cases we've have contacted people to see if they want to engage
>> with other proposers. But to handle larger numbers we'd need a simple,
>> light-weight way to let people know, while maintaining people's privacy
>> when they want it.
>>
>>
>> I would tend to think that actual proposals are a matter of public
>> record. Emoji should not be handled differently than other proposals for
>> character encoding in that regard.
>>
>> Why should there be an assumption that these are "proposals in private"
>> in this case?
>>
>> A./
>>
>
>
>