Corentin, I'm having a hard time understanding what the screenshots
included in P2675R0 are showing. The paper doesn't explain (or I missed
it) what was done to produce those screenshots. I can't tell what code
points the displayed glyphs correspond to. The set of characters
displayed seems to differ; the number of rows displayed is not
consistent. It doesn't seem to be possible to dive into the data to
determine which characters are being rendered differently. Basically,
I'm unable to evaluate whether the screenshots support the proposal.

It would also be helpful if the screenshots included information about
the terminal encoding (almost always UTF-8 I would guess/hope) and the
font(s) used. I recognize gathering such data could be challenging.

Tom.

On 11/29/22 3:40 PM, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
>
> SG16 will hold a telecon on Wednesday, November 30th, at 19:30 UTC
> (timezone conversion
> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20221130T193000&p1=1440&p2=tz_pst&p3=tz_mst&p4=tz_cst&p5=tz_est&p6=tz_cet>).
>
> *This message will also serve as your friendly reminder that this
> meeting is taking place tomorrow. **I'm sorry for publishing an agenda
> so very late. *
>
> *For participants in the USA, please note that daylight savings time
> ended 2022-11-06, so this telecon will start one hour earlier than our
> last telecon.*
>
> The agenda follows. We won't get through all of these. These are all
> of the NB comments we have left to address. Whatever we don't get to
> in this meeting will be scheduled for the December 14th meeting.
>
> * P2713R0: Escaping improvements in std::format
> <https://wg21.link/p2713r0>
> o US 38-098 22.14.6.4p1 [format.string.escaped] Escaping for
> debugging and logging
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/515>
> o FR 005-134 22.14.6.4 [format.string.escaped] Aggressive
> escaping <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/408>
> * P2693R0: Formatting thread::id and stacktrace
> <https://wg21.link/p2693r0>
> o FR-008-011 22.14 [format] Support formatting of thread::id
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/410>
> * FR-010-133 [Bibliography] Unify references to Unicode
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/412> and
> FR-021-013 5.3p5.2 [lex.charset] Codepoint names in identifiers
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/423>
> * P2675R0: LWG3780: The Paper (format's width estimation is too
> approximate and not forward compatible) <https://wg21.link/p2675r0>
> o LWG #3780: format's width estimation is too approximate and
> not forward compatible <https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3780>
> o FR-007-012 22.14.2.2 [format.string.std] codepoints with width
> 2 <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/409>
> * FR-020-014 5.3 [lex.charset] Replace "translation character set"
> by "Unicode" <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/422>
>
> P2713R0 <https://wg21.link/p2713r0> (Escaping improvements in
> std::format) implements the SG16 proposed resolutions for US 38-098
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/515> (see the 2022-10-19
> SG16 meeting summary
> <https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings#october-19th-2022>) and
> FR 005-134 <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/408> (see the
> 2022-11-02 SG16 meeting summary
> <https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings#november-2nd-2022>).
> We'll review the wording and then poll forwarding to LEWG as the
> resolution of the two NB comments.
>
> Candidate Poll 1: P2713R0: Forward to LEWG as the recommended
> resolution of US 38-098 and FR 005-134 [amended to ...].
>
> P2693R0 <https://wg21.link/p2693r0> (Formatting thread::id and
> stacktrace) is intended to resolve FR-008-011
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/410>. I did not
> initially tag this NB comment as needing SG16 review, but Bryce
> requested that SG16 take a look, specifically with regard to narrow vs
> wide formatting. Bryce has indicated this paper will need to be
> approved soon in order for it to appear in the electronic polling that
> will be conducted in January.
>
> Candidate Poll 2: P2693R0: Forward to LEWG as the recommended
> resolution of FR-008-011 [amended to ...].
>
> FR-010-133 <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/412> and
> FR-021-013 <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/423> were
> discussed during the 2022-11-02 SG16 meeting
> <https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings#november-2nd-2022> and
> concluded with a recommendation to discuss with the project editor the
> possibility of preferring the Unicode Standard over ISO/IEC 10646
> within the C++ standard. The project editor approved this direction
> and we can now move forward with drafting wording changes. This will
> require a paper produced in short order if it is to be accepted for C++23.
>
> P2675R0 <https://wg21.link/p2675r0> (LWG3780: The Paper (format's
> width estimation is too approximate and not forward compatible)) is
> intended to resolve LWG #3780
> <https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3780> and FR-007-012
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/409>. It seeks to
> replace the explicit list of code point ranges in
> [format.string.std]p12 <https://eel.is/c++draft/format.string.std#12>
> with wording that derives substantially the same set of code points
> using Unicode database properties.
>
> Candidate Poll 3.1: P2675R0: Forward to LEWG as the recommended
> resolution of FR-007-012 [amended to ...].
> Candidate Poll 3.2: P2675R0: Forward to LEWG for C++26 [amended to
> ...].
> Candidate Poll 3.3: Recommend to LEWG that FR-007-012 be rejected.
>
> FR-020-014 <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/422> raises
> concerns that were discussed as part of the reviews of P2314
> <https://wg21.link/p2314> and P2297 <https://wg21.link/p2297> during
> the 2021-03-24 SG16 meeting
> <https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings/blob/master/README-2021.md#march-24th-2021>.
> The comment does not appear to present new information. If we choose
> to accept, a paper will need to be quickly produced.
>
> Candidate poll 4.1: Recommend to CWG that FR-020-014 be accepted.
> Candidate poll 4.2: Recommend to CWG that FR-020-014 be rejected.
>
> Tom.
>
>