On 5/25/21 11:38 AM, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
> On 5/25/21 11:21 AM, Corentin Jabot via SG16 wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 5:19 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]
>> <mailto:tom_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/25/21 10:36 AM, Corentin Jabot via SG16 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 3:08 PM Tom Honermann via SG16
>>> <sg16_at_[hidden] <mailto:sg16_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Reminder that this meeting is taking place tomorrow. The
>>> agenda remains the same.
>>>
>>> Tom.
>>>
>>> On 5/16/21 5:23 PM, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SG16 will hold a telecon on Wednesday, May 26th at 19:30
>>>> UTC (timezone conversion
>>>> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20210526T193000&p1=1440&p2=tz_pdt&p3=tz_mdt&p4=tz_cdt&p5=tz_edt&p6=tz_cest>).
>>>>
>>>> The agenda is:
>>>>
>>>> * P2295R3: Support for UTF-8 as a portable source file
>>>> encoding <https://wg21.link/p2295r3>
>>>> o Review updates intended to address prior SG16 feedback.
>>>> * P2093R6: Formatted output <https://wg21.link/p2093r6>
>>>> o Discuss locale dependent character encoding concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Since we did not get to discuss P2295R3 at our last
>>>> telecon, it will again retain the top spot on the agenda
>>>> followed by P2093R6. Thus, the agenda looks much the same
>>>> as for the last telecon (I dropped P2348R0
>>>> <https://wg21.link/p2348r0> for now; we won't realistically
>>>> get to it).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I will try to be there, no promise though.
>>
>> Thanks for letting me know. If you are unable to attend, and if
>> you don't object, we'll still review P2295R3 and carefully record
>> any requested changes so that we can keep making progress on this
>> paper.
>>
>>
>> Given my disagreement with some recent suggestions, that might be
>> counterproductive!
>
> Dropping the mailing list...
>
Uh, total fail on my part there. When intending to drop the mailing
list, it helps to actually remove the mailing list from the reply list!

Corentin, please reply privately for now.

Tom.

> Can you elaborate? I'm not sure which recent suggestions you're
> referring to. My impression has been that we have good consensus on
> moving P2295R3 forward, but perhaps I missed something. How would you
> prefer to move forward with this?
>
> Tom.
>
>