In this context, please also see 
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2009-m08/0207.html, which 
says (From: announcements / unicode.org; Date: Wed Aug 26 2009 - 19:48:45 
CDT):

 >>>>
The data files in the Unicode Character Database for Unicode 5.2 have
been revised to include all of the authorized changes from the last UTC
meeting. If you use any of the Unicode data in your implementations,
please update a test version of your implementation to use those files
and run your tests. If there are any showstopper bugs, please report
them (using http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html) as soon as possible.

  From this point, the only adjustments that will be made to the data
will be on the basis of showstopper bugs, including bugs uncovered in
the process of updating the Unicode Collation data files for UCA 5.2.
 >>>>

This means:
a) Unicode 5.2 is close to being ready for release in October.
b) Implementations (such as Ruby) should test the data.

Regards,   Martin.


On 2009/08/26 19:39, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> Hello Yui, others,
>
> [I'd really like to hear from Yugui, because she is responsible for
> 1.9.1 and 1.9.2.]
>
> On 2009/08/26 18:46, Yui NARUSE wrote:
>> Issue #1889 has been updated by Yui NARUSE.
>>
>>
>> I see.
>> ruby_1_9_2 release branch will be created sooner.
>
> Good point. According to [ruby-core:23977], there is a feature freeze on
> Sept. 25. The release of Unicode 5.2 (final!) is planned for October
> 2009 (see to http://www.unicode.org/versions/beta.html).
>
> [My personal guess is that this might happen in the week of October 12,
> you can guess the reason for why I guess this date at
> http://www.unicodeconference.org/. This would be before release
> candidate 1 of 1.9.2.]
>
> Last year, additions of transcodings (in essence just more data) were
> allowed even after the feature freeze. In my view, moving to the latest
> stable Unicode data version is very similar. Another way to think about
> it is that it's possible to include Unicode 5.2 beta in 1.9.2 while
> 1.9.2 is not yet final. This runs the risk that we have to move back
> from Unicode 5.2 to Unicode 5.1 if Unicode 5.2 doesn't go final before
> December or so, but I consider this risk very low (the Unicode
> consortium has an extremely well established release process). On the
> other hand, I consider the fact that a final Ruby release contains the
> latest stable Unicode data a big plus, both for usage and for
> 'marketing'. Also, if I were the maintainer of one of the 'earlier'
> branches, I would try to follow stable Unicode versions, too.
>
> So my proposal would be:
> - Stay with Unicode 5.1 to allow maintainers of 1.9.1 (and below) to
> update to latest stable Unicode version.
> - Move to Unicode 5.2 (beta) for trunk and 1.9.2.
> - Update trunk (and 1.9.2) whenever Unicode 5.2 (beta) gets updated.
> - Update trunk (and 1.9.2, 1.9.1 (and below)) to Unicode 5.2 when
> Unicode 5.2 goes final.
>
> My main concern currently would be that, as far as I understand, not all
> properties are currently automatically updated. But I think that can be
> fixed by September 25th.
>
> Regards, Martin.
>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/1889
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst / it.aoyama.ac.jp