C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG16] Agenda for the 2021-10-06 SG16 telecon

From: Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 12:32:43 -0400
Reminder that this meeting is taking place tomorrow.


On 10/1/21 1:40 PM, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
> *Please note that there has been a schedule change.* The previously
> scheduled telecon for 2021-10-13 has been moved earlier to 2021-10-06.
> This change was made to accommodate schedule restrictions for the
> author of the two papers on the agenda below. The shared calendar has
> been updated (which triggered the sending of new meeting invitations).
> SG16 will hold a telecon on Wednesday, October *6th* (not the 13th) at
> 19:30 UTC (timezone conversion
> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20211006T193000&p1=1440&p2=tz_pdt&p3=tz_mdt&p4=tz_cdt&p5=tz_edt&p6=tz_cest>).
> The agenda is:
> * D2460R0: UTF-16 is standard practice
> <https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2460R0.pdf>
> * D1885R8: Naming Text Encodings to Demystify Them
> <https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D1885R8.pdf>
> o Discuss and poll issues recently raised on the LEWG and SG16
> mailing lists.
> D2460 is first on the agenda because establishing consensus on it will
> reduce complications for P1885. We'll plan to spend 30 minutes on
> D2460 and the remainder of our time on P1885.
> D2460R0 seeks to address SG16 issue 9
> <https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16/issues/9> (Requiring wchar_t to
> represent all members of the execution wide character set does not
> match existing practice). Please read through the comments in that issue.
> P1885 is back on the agenda to discuss issues raised on the LEWG and
> SG16 mailing lists. The relevant email threads are linked below; there
> have been a lot.
> * SG16: Feedback re: P1885R5: Naming Text Encodings
> <https://lists.isocpp.org/sg16/2021/07/2490.php>
> o Naming issues (to be deferred to LEWG):
> + "mib" vs "mib_enum" vs something else.
> + Preservation of the "cs" prefix
> * SG16: P1885: Naming text encodings: Curation and provenance of
> aliases <https://lists.isocpp.org/sg16/2021/09/2564.php>
> o Implementation lenience with regard to registered aliases.
> o Ambiguities between encoding "standards".
> * SG16: P1885: Naming text encodings: Encodings in the environment
> versus registered character sets
> <https://lists.isocpp.org/sg16/2021/09/2579.php>
> o Latitude for implementations to consider slightly divergent
> encodings a match for an IANA registered character set.
> o Latitude for use of encodings such as UTF-8 with wchar_t elements.
> o Whether the IANA registry constitutes a sufficient source of
> identified encodings.
> * SG16: P1885: Naming text encodings: problem+solution re: charsets,
> octets, and wide encodings
> <https://lists.isocpp.org/sg16/2021/09/2584.php>
> o Encoding schemes vs encoding forms and how to map the IANA
> registry to encodings in C++.
> o Whether the IANA registry is fit for all the purposes for
> which it is being employed.
> * SG16: P1885 polling <https://lists.isocpp.org/sg16/2021/09/2633.php>
> o Relevance of IANA specified encodings to wide literal encoding.
> o Tagging of big endian vs little endian.
> * LEWG: P1885: Text encoding aliases() wording suggestion
> <https://lists.isocpp.org/lib-ext/2021/08/19633.php>
> o Wording recommendations courtesy of Tomasz.
> * LEWG: P1885: Naming text encodings: R7 wording feedback
> <https://lists.isocpp.org/lib-ext/2021/09/20198.php>
> o Requirements on encoding names.
> * LEWG: New P1885 revision, LEWG feedback applied
> <https://lists.isocpp.org/lib-ext/2021/09/19963.php>
> o Discussion largely captured in the threads linked above.
> The above threads probe fundamental concerns about the IANA registry
> and the goals that P1885 strives to fulfill. It probably isn't
> realistic to expect to resolve them all in a single telecon. Given
> the amount of discussion that has taken place and the possible
> perspectives offered, I'm no longer confident that we have a shared
> deep understanding of the design and intent. Specific points I want to
> cover include the following.
> * Is the IANA registry sufficient and appropriate for the
> identification of both the ordinary and wide literal encodings?
> * How is the IANA registry intended to be applied? Which IANA
> encoding would be considered a match for each of the following cases?
> o Wide literal encoding is UTF-16, sizeof(wchar_t) is 2,
> CHAR_BIT is >= 8, little endian architecture.
> o Wide literal encoding is UTF-16, sizeof(wchar_t) is 1,
> CHAR_BIT is >= 16, architecture endianness is irrelevant since
> code units are a single byte.
> o Wide literal encoding is UTF-16LE, sizeof(wchar_t) is 1,
> CHAR_BIT is >= 8, architecture endianness is irrelevant since
> code units are a single byte.
> * How are conflicts between the IANA registered encoding names and
> other names recognized by implementations to be resolved?
> Please feel free to suggest other topics.
> Tom.

Received on 2021-10-05 11:32:49