Hello folks.

Here is a new draft of P1885 https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D1885R9.pdf
<https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D1885R9.pdf>

P1885 was forwarded to LEWG last month, however two papers proposes changes:

P2498R0 Forward compatibility of text_encodingwith additional encoding
registries
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2498r0.pdf>
P2491R0 Text encodings follow-up
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2491r0.html>

There were also a number of negative comments during the electronic polling
period.

To address all of that:

   - I mandated CHAR_BIT == 8 (which is something SG-16 and LEWG approved
   but was not present in the polled version, unfortunately)
   - I removed the wide methods - which are the source of most of the
   contention. I honestly regret not having made that change much sooner.
   - I removed the "object representation" terminology from the wording,
   which the 2 previous changes make unnecessary.

The paper goes into more details, as well as why I think the other changes
proposed by P2498R0
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2498r0.pdf> (adding
padding to text_encoding just in case) and P2491R0
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2491r0.html> (adding
different names for the wide encodings) are problematic.
P2498R0 further suggests a change of naming for
text_encoding::id/text_encoding_mib(). LEWG already discussed these names,
but I'm not opposed to changing them if that increases consensus.

I hope these changes will increase consensus.

Thanks for your feedbacks,

Corentin