From: Ken Lunde Sent: Sunday, 29 October 2017 10:02 AM To: LU, Qin [COMP]; chen zhuang Cc: irgeditors@ml.comp.polyu.edu.hk Subject: Re: [irgeditors] IRG49WS2015DiscussionRecord Dr. Lu & Mr. Chen, There is one more issue (#9 in the list below), so if you don't mind reposting my feedback with all the issues that I reported, please replace what you posted with what I wrote below: 1) UTC-02935 (02001) was disunified, not unified to U+23D21. 2) KC-00580 (00678) was not postponed, but rather was withdrawn. 3) UTC-01220 (00771) was unified with U+2D3EC, and should not be pending (the background is that KC- 00724 and UTC-01120 were unified, so this pair shows up twice in the discussion record, first among the ROK-submitted characters where it correctly states "Unified," then among the UTC-submitted characters where it incorrectly states "Pending"). 4) UTC-01272 (02262) should simply state "Disunified," not "Encode both of them," which can be confusing, because the discussion record is about one character. 5) UTC-01276 (02284) should state "Disunified," not "Pending," which could lead to confusion. 6) UTC-02964 through UTC-02967 (00045, 00046, 00308, and 00122) state "Pending," and while I don't have anything in my notes about them, my memory is that they were disunified. 7) UTC-01489 (01126) states "Pending," but my memory is that it was disunified. 8) UTC-01950 (03555) seems to state "Pending" (the single-page document for this character is confusing), but it was definitely disunified during the discussions. 9) UTC-02624 (0074) involved only confirming that it is the simpliied form of U+214E6, so I don't think that "Postponed" is correct for this particular character, and "Disunified" is probably the correct action. Regards... -- Ken