Unicode 9.0

Unicode 9.0

[Eli Zaretskii]

Unicode 9.0.0 is scheduled to be released in June this year, which is
probably around the Emacs 25.1 release date.  Unicode 9.0.0 started
its beta review today.  Should we import the updated data files into
Emacs now, so that they are part of the pretest?

Re: Unicode 9.0

[John Wiegley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 518 bytes --]

>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Unicode 9.0.0 is scheduled to be released in June this year, which is
> probably around the Emacs 25.1 release date. Unicode 9.0.0 started its beta
> review today. Should we import the updated data files into Emacs now, so
> that they are part of the pretest?

If you feel safe doing so, I'd be fine with it.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 629 bytes --]

Re: Unicode 9.0

[Paul Eggert]

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.

Re: Unicode 9.0

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
> 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.

Re: Unicode 9.0

[David De La Harpe Golden]

On 12/03/16 15:53, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
>> 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 
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 
data files—use only the final, approved Version 9.0.0 data files, 
expected in June 2016.
"""

It is also stated there they have already frozen the code point and 
character names, and to be honest I haven't even looked at what's new in 
9 in any depth. In practice there may well not be any more changes 
before finalisation of 9, whether emacs-significant changes or otherwise.

And I'm _not_ objecting to the recent update (a761fbf2) of the files to 
beta 9 in git for a shakedown during pretest, which I think was what Eli 
meant anyway, but that's still distinct from an emacs official versioned 
release tarball.

I just mean (and this very probably won't even arise in the end): at 
some future time close to the emacs release, if for some reason unicode 
9 still isn't officially final yet, and if for some reason you don't 
want to delay the emacs release a bit to wait for it... the official 
emacs release should probably be made with older final definitions, not 
any beta ones.

Re: Unicode 9.0

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net>
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:57:15 +0000
> 
> This may well be something that was going without saying, but just in 
> 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 
> data files—use only the final, approved Version 9.0.0 data files, 
> expected in June 2016.
> """
> 
> It is also stated there they have already frozen the code point and 
> character names, and to be honest I haven't even looked at what's new in 
> 9 in any depth. In practice there may well not be any more changes 
> before finalisation of 9, whether emacs-significant changes or otherwise.
> 
> And I'm _not_ objecting to the recent update (a761fbf2) of the files to 
> beta 9 in git for a shakedown during pretest, which I think was what Eli 
> meant anyway, but that's still distinct from an emacs official versioned 
> release tarball.
> 
> I just mean (and this very probably won't even arise in the end): at 
> some future time close to the emacs release, if for some reason unicode 
> 9 still isn't officially final yet, and if for some reason you don't 
> want to delay the emacs release a bit to wait for it... the official 
> emacs release should probably be made with older final definitions, not 
> any beta ones.

I don't see why we should refrain from using the beta files in the
release, if they don't release the official Unicode 9.0 by the time we
are ready.  No reason whatsoever.