From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David De La Harpe Golden Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unicode 9.0 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:57:15 +0000 Message-ID: <56EA1D0B.4060101@harpegolden.net> References: <83fuvwiz6x.fsf@gnu.org> <56E34028.8050802@cs.ucla.edu> <831t7fheux.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458183465 21460 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2016 02:57:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:57:45 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 17 03:57:30 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1agO7t-00089M-64 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 03:57:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60054 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agO7s-0005gr-KP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:57:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47147) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agO7o-0005gm-KD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:57:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agO7k-0004rq-KB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:57:24 -0400 Original-Received: from harpegolden.net ([65.99.215.13]:40749) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agO7k-0004r7-FQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:57:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [87.198.47.96] (87-198-47-96.ptr.magnet.ie [87.198.47.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "David De La Harpe Golden", Issuer "David De La Harpe Golden Personal CA 4" (verified OK)) by harpegolden.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A7EB3C080 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:57:17 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.5.0 In-Reply-To: <831t7fheux.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 65.99.215.13 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:201808 Archived-At: On 12/03/16 15:53, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Paul Eggert >> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:01:12 -0800 >> >> John Wiegley wrote: >>> If you feel safe doing so, I'd be fine with it. >> >> +1. The beta 9.0.0 files are more likely to be useful for Emacs 25.1 = users than >> the 8.0.0 files. > > Done. > This may well be something that was going without saying, but just in=20 case / to be pernickety, there's a specific warning on the beta 9 page: http://unicode.org/versions/beta-9.0.0.html """ No products or implementations should be released based on the beta UCD=20 data files=E2=80=94use only the final, approved Version 9.0.0 data files,= =20 expected in June 2016. """ It is also stated there they have already frozen the code point and=20 character names, and to be honest I haven't even looked at what's new in=20 9 in any depth. In practice there may well not be any more changes=20 before finalisation of 9, whether emacs-significant changes or otherwise. And I'm _not_ objecting to the recent update (a761fbf2) of the files to=20 beta 9 in git for a shakedown during pretest, which I think was what Eli=20 meant anyway, but that's still distinct from an emacs official versioned=20 release tarball. I just mean (and this very probably won't even arise in the end): at=20 some future time close to the emacs release, if for some reason unicode=20 9 still isn't officially final yet, and if for some reason you don't=20 want to delay the emacs release a bit to wait for it... the official=20 emacs release should probably be made with older final definitions, not=20 any beta ones.