Skip to content

Bopomofo -> Limited_Use #1129

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 6, 2025
Merged

Bopomofo -> Limited_Use #1129

merged 2 commits into from
May 6, 2025

Conversation

josh-hadley
Copy link
Collaborator

@josh-hadley josh-hadley commented May 6, 2025

[UTC-183-C37] Consensus: Change Bopomofo to "Limited Use" in UAX #31. For Unicode Version 17.0. See L2/25-087 item 5.5.
[UTC-183-A79] Action Item for Josh Hadley, PAG: Update Identifier_Status and Identifier_Type properties according to the change of status of Bopomofo to “Limited Use”. For Unicode Version 17.0. See L2/25-087 item 5.5.

Change Bopomofo to "Limited Use" in UAX #31. For Unicode Version 17.0. See L2/25-087 item 5.5.
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@josh-hadley josh-hadley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@asmusf First pass at this just assigning Bopomofo as Limited_Use resulted in a couple of double assignments from previous updates. Are these OK per the consensus? If not I think I can use override to force them to Limited_Use only.

312E ; Limited_Use Obsolete # 10.0 BOPOMOFO LETTER O WITH DOT ABOVE
02EA..02EB ; Limited_Use Not_XID # 3.0 [2] MODIFIER LETTER YIN DEPARTING TONE MARK..MODIFIER LETTER YANG DEPARTING TONE MARK

@asmusf
Copy link

asmusf commented May 6, 2025

Hmmm. Not maintaining info on "obsolete" for "limited_use" scripts is acceptable, though discarding any vetted information is always regrettable, but I get that we may not want the burden of maintaining a consistent analysis. (While this means we inadvertently force people who want to support a limited_use script to start from scratch, we can survive this one for now).

However, the Not_XID seems something that is "stronger" than "limited_use". It seems quite wrong to have that information "hidden", because we do want people to be able to add Limited_Use scripts to their own identifiers and that should not force them to recreated everything.

However, again, this data is discoverable, and we can sit down and have a discussion on whether Not_XID should be handled differently. For now, let's just match all other limited_use scripts.

@josh-hadley
Copy link
Collaborator Author

josh-hadley commented May 6, 2025

@asmusf reviewing your message, I think this means we should do:

  1. remove the Obsolete assignment for U+312E (I can leave a historical record in removals.txt by simply commenting out the line that makes that assignment)

  2. leave the Not_XID assignments for U+02EA..U+02EB

@asmusf
Copy link

asmusf commented May 6, 2025

@josh-hadley , looking into the Identifier_Type.txt file for 16.0.0 there are many, many instances of multiple assignments combining Limited_Use with Obsolete and Not_XID. That means you should not remove the Obsolete or Not_XID.

@josh-hadley
Copy link
Collaborator Author

you should not remove the Obsolete or Not_XID.

OK, great, then this is ready to go 😄. Thanks!

@josh-hadley josh-hadley marked this pull request as ready for review May 6, 2025 17:14
@josh-hadley josh-hadley requested review from markusicu and asmusf May 6, 2025 17:15
Copy link
Member

@markusicu markusicu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  • changes lgtm
  • outcome of discussion lgtm
  • tnx!!

@markusicu
Copy link
Member

FYI

you should not remove the Obsolete or Not_XID.

We can't remove Not_XID anyway because it's computed.

@markusicu
Copy link
Member

@josh-hadley ok if I merge on your behalf?

@markusicu markusicu merged commit 35992e1 into main May 6, 2025
39 checks passed
@markusicu markusicu deleted the jh-bopomofo-limited-use branch May 6, 2025 22:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants