Not accepted by UTC but in ISO ballot?

[Shriramana Sharma via Unicode]

Hello Ken and thanks for the reply. So I understand that the need for this
category is rare but occurs nevertheless.

Now I'm wondering about the similar category "not accepted by UTC, and not
in ISO ballot" – why such a character would be mentioned on the pipeline at
all…

On Fri, 27 Dec, 2019, 07:19 Ken Whistler, <kenwhistler at sonic.net> wrote:

> Shriramana,
>
> On 12/20/2019 6:29 PM, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote:
> > I was looking at the pipeline for something else, and for the first
> > time I see a character category: “not accepted by the UTC but in ISO
> > ballot” and two characters in it.
> Those two characters changed status as of December 4, when the
> disposition of comments for CD3 was posted. They will not be part of the
> DIS ballot. The pipeline has now been updated to reflect that change of
> status.
> >
> > So IIUC while technically people are free to submit a document to the
> > ISO separately without submitting to UTC, it has always been the
> > practice to my knowledge to get a character approved by the UTC first.
>
> That is a preferred process, but doesn't always occur. The most obvious
> exception is that large new CJK repertoire additions are developed by
> the IRG and often go into ballot in ISO before the UTC takes a formal
> decision to approve them. CJK Extension G has now been approved for 13.0
> by the UTC, but the entire block was listed in the pipeline for some
> time as "not accepted by UTC, but in active ISO technical ballot" once
> Extension G went into CD balloting.
>
> --Ken
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20191227/8d969cb2/attachment.html>