On 4/4/22 7:52 AM, Jens Maurer via Core wrote:
> On 04/04/2022 09.38, Corentin via Core wrote:
>> Hello folks.
>> I'm currently trying to implement a conforming version of P2071.
>>
>> It's somewhat...difficult, as 10646 is not the most developer friendly source of truth.
>>
>> Are implementers expected to manually comb the code charts in the pdf of ISO 10646 to find the relevant names?
>>
>> I understand the desire to refer to ISO 10646 but...could we please add a notes along the lines of
>> "The names and aliases are derived from the character names in UnicodeData.txt and the aliases classified as alternate, control or correction of NameAliases.txt"
> "derived from" isn't helpful, I guess, because it doesn't say
> "identical to". The latter is what would make the job of
> implementers easier.
>
> In any case, we should refrain from attempting to add words to
> C++ that could interpret and possibly contradict that other
> standard. What if some ISO 10646 name differs from UnicodeData.txt?
> That is hopefully not a bug in C++.

Peter Brett submitted WG2 N5168
<https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5168R1-ISO10646.pdf> late last year
and the WG2 project editor followed up with WG2 N5174
<https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5174-namesaliases.pdf>; a proposal to
address the reported concerns regarding name aliases. The proposed
changes add a normative reference to NameAliases.txt and, hopefully,
clean up the presentation some.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile reaching out to the WG2 project editor to
report the difficulties you are encountering. Perhaps he would be
amenable to addressing them editorially or in a revision of WG2 N5174.

Tom.