C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: Referencing the Unicode Standard

From: Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2022 16:17:08 +0100
Just before [lex.name] in the paper, there is still a
reference to ISO 10646:

"character of the translation character set is encoded as specified in ISO/IEC 10646 for ..."

"with the XID_Start Unicode property" -> "with the Unicode property XID_Start"
(same in all other such situations)


"The specified year and month are implementation-defined."
-> "The value is implementation-defined."

I would prefer if we could repurpose that macro to refer to the supported
Unicode version instead (by its release year/month).


It would be helpful to retain a reference to the place where UTF-8 etc.
is defined.

Regarding reference to annexes: Since our normative reference would
say "Core Specification" with this paper, that phrasing seems to exclude
annexes. If we just say "Unicode", that's less exclusive of annexes.


On 04/12/2022 15.16, Corentin via SG16 wrote:
> Hey folks.
> First draft updating some references to the Unicode standard (and more importantly replacing ISO-10646).
> I'm hoping to get early feedback :)
> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2736R0.pdf <https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2736R0.pdf>
> A careful examination of the 3 standards do not reveal anything I think we should be concerned about besides what I've highlighted in the paper but please let me know if you have specific questions we need to address.
> I would like to point out the mess that is __STDC_ISO_10646__. and whose value currently depends on an ISO-10646 version.
> In the paper I propose to make that value implementation-defined as it cannot be relied upon except to check if some piece of code has been updated in the past 20+ years.
> I've also reworded the deprecated codecvt facilities to not mention UCS-2 and getting rid of one more reference.
> I've massaged a few places to improve how we reference unicode properties.
> The other thing that is not 100% clear to me is whether we should reference UAX44, the Derived Core properties and UAX 29 (which we do currently),
> or if referencing the Unicode standard implies all of that (I think it does).
> I've noticed that the Unicode standard incorrectly references version 14.0 of itself when it means 15.0 but hopefully we understand what is meant.
> Thanks,
> Corentin

Received on 2022-12-04 15:17:12