From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unicode 9.0 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 05:42:03 +0200 Message-ID: <83egb9ahys.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83fuvwiz6x.fsf@gnu.org> <56E34028.8050802@cs.ucla.edu> <831t7fheux.fsf@gnu.org> <56EA1D0B.4060101@harpegolden.net> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458186170 4536 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2016 03:42:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 03:42:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David De La Harpe Golden Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 17 04:42:37 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 1agOpZ-0001nd-2a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:42:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60181 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agOpV-0006sJ-99 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:42:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42221) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agOpQ-0006s1-TR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:42:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agOpM-0007Cg-9W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:42:28 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47992) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agOpM-0007Ca-5h; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:42:24 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1674 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1agOpL-0004A5-4j; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:42:23 -0400 In-reply-to: <56EA1D0B.4060101@harpegolden.net> (message from David De La Harpe Golden on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:57:15 +0000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:201809 Archived-At: > From: David De La Harpe Golden > 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.