[Python-Dev] Unicode 5.1.0

[Brett Cannon]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Benjamin Peterson
> <musiccomposition at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
>>> On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/
>>>> "Unicode 5.1.0 contains over 100,000 characters, and provides significant
>>>> additions and improvements..." to existing features, including new files and
>>>> upgrades to existing files.  Sounds close to adding features ;-)
>>>
>>> I agree.  This seriously feels like new, potentially high risk code to be
>>> adding this late in the game.  The BDFL can always override, but unless
>>> someone is really convincing that this is low risk high benefit, I'd vote no
>>> for 2.6/3.0.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Something I think we should also be considering is the 2.7/3.1 release
>> cycle. I propose that we shorten it to ~1 year from 2.6/3.0's release
>> with our main aim being binding 2.x and 3.x more closely. This would
>> get the new unicode features out fairly quickly without having to wait
>> another 2.5 years like 2.5 -> 2.6.
>
> I was never proposing to support any new features in 2.6/3.0. I was
> only proposing to update the data files that we already support to the
> versions provided by 5.1.0. Those data files should have the same
> format, just slightly improved content: some new characters, some
> corrected properties. Fredrik says it best:
>
>> at least two Unicode experts have stated that they don't think the changes
>> are that important.  determining exactly what the changes to the *core*
>> character database was the whole point of my offer to tinker with this.
>>
>> (I got distracted due to compiler issues and certain other things to be
>> announced later, but I expect to have some results later this week).
>

Plus the Europeans who probably use Unicode more than the dissenting
Americans also seem to think it's a good idea. It's just a data table,
and it's auto-generated, *and* one of the main guys from the Unicode
Consortium is willing to help. I say let the change go in.

-Brett