Subject: Re: Proposed normative wording for P1030 path_view draft 1
From: Tom Honermann (tom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-15 17:24:03
On 10/14/20 5:32 AM, Niall Douglas via SG16 wrote:
> On 14/10/2020 06:33, Tom Honermann wrote:
>> Thank you, Nial.Â I'll ask for a volunteer at the SG16 telecon
>> scheduled for this week (in under 24 hours) to perform a review.Â
>> Unless that review raises new SG16 specific concerns, I'm not
>> inclined to spend further SG16 telecon time on this paper as I think
>> LEWG is well positioned to take it from here.Â LEWG and/or LWG can
>> always request specific input from SG16 if their respective chairs
>> feel doing so is warranted.
> Billy gave extensive, highly transforming, "only an implementer would
> see this stuff" feedback which widely transforms the paper. Basically
> it has to be rewritten, and I'm about half done in that rewrite. I've
> also merged feedback from Corentin, and I think a better proposed
> wording has resulted.
> The reference implementation in LLFIO has been upgraded to match the
> future wording, and source compatibility breakage has not been terrible.
> Please do seek the volunteer however, and I'll get them draft 2 by
> next week. The biggest change in R4 relevant to SG16 is configurable
> separator interpretation, where we shall need to take a decision about
> how it needs to interact with Unicode normalisation and separator
> collapsing. Earlier editions did not have it at all, LEWG (via a
> comment from Billy actually) added it in Prague.
Steve Downey bravely stepped forward to offer his services.
> Thanks for your help.
SG16 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org