Hi Tom,

Thanks for making the changes. I would like to request that the bullet
about "code point"/"code unit" be struck. I do not recall initiating a
comment that matches the recorded description. Indeed, "code point" is
correct because it is being used in the sentence as the input to UTF-16
encoding.

Thanks,


Hubert Tong

On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 3:37 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 1/25/23 1:40 PM, Hubert Tong wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Some comments/requests.
>
> Thank you, Hubert. I'm sorry for the delay in getting these updates
> applied.
>
>
> For "can be broadly applied", can we clarify by adding "(and thus should
> only be used when a broad interpretation is actually intended)".
>
> For:
> Hubert pointed out a category error in the proposed wording change for the
> codecvt facets; "code point" is used where "code unit" would be more
> appropriate.
>
> the description of the category error that was raised should be something
> like:
> "the first bullet is a description of the artifacts produced by an
> encoding, not of an encoding itself; the second bullet names an encoding:
> both bullets should be written such that they can be easily read as
> specifying encodings"
>
> Updates applied as follows:
>
> - Hubert stated that the "abstract character" definition from the
> Unicode Standard can be broadly applied* and thus should only be used
> when a broad interpretation is actually intended*.
> - ...
> - Hubert pointed out a category error in the proposed wording change
> for the codecvt facets; "code point" is used where "code unit" would be
> more appropriate.
> - *Hubert further explained that the first bullet describes the
> artifacts produced by an encoding where as the second bullet names an
> encoding; both bullets should be written such that they can be easily read
> as specifying encodings.*
>
> Tom.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Hubert Tong
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 4:43 PM Tom Honermann via SG16 <
> sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> The summary for the SG16 meeting held January 11th, 2023 is now
>> available. For those that attended, please review and suggest corrections.
>>
>> - https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings/#january-11th-2023
>>
>> No decisions were made at this meeting.
>>
>> Tom.
>> --
>> SG16 mailing list
>> SG16_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
>>
>