<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Following up on Charlotte's comment: </p>
<p>for Unicode 17.0, released in September 2025, see:</p>
<p>1. <b>Unicode® 17.0 Versioned Charts Index </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-17.0/"><https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-17.0/></a>,
which lists all 4803 characters newly encoded in Unicode 17.0,
including 27 in "Combining Diacritical Marks Extended".</p>
<p>2. <b>Combining Diacritical Marks Extended</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-17.0/U170-1AB0.pdf"><https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-17.0/U170-1AB0.pdf></a><br>
which has pictures of new combining characters U-1ACF..U-1ADD and
U-1AE0..U-1AEB. <br>
</p>
<p>So, there have been new combiners in the most recent version of
The Unicode Standard.<br>
—Jim DeLaHunt<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2025-12-14 10:28, Charlotte Eiffel
Lilith Buff via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKLR3Apkzmaou_4tAt5Smh1-4AprF0kZSEjwd+nkWav45Q58yQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">> The fact that there haven't been any new
combiners in several versions</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div>I’m actually really curious what gave you that impression.
Pretty much every Unicode update adds tons of new combining
characters (the only exceptions being those weird inbetween-y
versions we occasionally get).</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am So., 14. Dez. 2025 um
18:39 Uhr schrieb Phil Smith III via Unicode <<a
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Doug
Ewell wrote:<br>
>Another, possibly more farsighted reason is that, if a
newly needed<br>
>letter-with-diacritic can be represented today with an
existing letter<br>
>and an existing diacritic, instead of waiting possibly
years for the<br>
>precomposed combination to be encoded, that time saving
is a big win<br>
>for the user community.<br>
<br>
"newly needed letter-with-diacritic" -- does that happen?
Venusian gets added and the ONLY issue is that it needs
J+Combining Grave? I see the point but am not sure it's
realistic, and in any case isn't what I'm talking about: I'm
asking about NEW combiners. Though "invalid" combinations
can be an issue now, with different engines rendering them
differently. At least if code comes across J+Combining Grave
now, the combining-ness is known. When a Combining Backslash
is added for Jovian, well, now that character is new and
normalization adventures abound.<br>
<br>
>More combining characters that work essentially the same
as existing<br>
>ones don’t really add to the pain.<br>
<br>
Actually they add a LOT of pain/complexity for certain use
cases, because of normalization.<br>
<br>
Thanks; I don't mean to sound like "Go away", this is
exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for! The fact
that there haven't been any new combiners in several
versions (I think?) is what made me think that there might
be some level of "No more, not now, not ever" policy.<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
. --Jim DeLaHunt, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jdlh@jdlh.com">jdlh@jdlh.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.jdlh.com/">http://blog.jdlh.com/</a> (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://jdlh.com/">http://jdlh.com/</a>)
multilingual websites consultant, Vancouver, B.C., Canada</pre>
</body>
</html>