On 11/8/22 2:04 PM, Corentin wrote:
> Thanks Thomas for the quick response.
> This is excellent news.
> We probably want SG16 to confirm the direction as there were some
> dissident voices.

Agreed with all the above!

> If we decide to move forward, I'm happy to review the
> terminology/write a paper for that (along with replacing the term
> translation set if SG16) gets consensus on that.

Thank you, Corentin!

>
> UCS Scalar value => Unicode scalar value
> character (where we do mean character) => abstract character
> code point/code unit => unchanged.

Changing /UCS scalar value/ to /Unicode scalar value/ is not problematic
and quite reasonable for C++23, but /character/ has so many other issues
within the standard that I think it should be addressed separately for a
later standard (and I would be very encouraging of anyone wishing to do
that work!)

>
> If we think there are definitions in Unicode that lack precision, I
> think we can talk to Unicode folks about improving them.
> In the past we have had to ask iso 10646 to align some definitions
> with Unicode as important details were missing,
> so lack of clarity wouldn't become a new problem.

Agreed. The interactions I've had with the Unicode Consortium have
demonstrated that they are quite welcoming of suggested improvements.

Tom.