On 07/01/2024 09.30, JF Bastien wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 5:19 PM Jens Maurer via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden] <mailto:sg16_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> Why are features added to Unicode any different, conceptually?
>
> My recollection from our discussion was that the Unicode Consortium itself strongly recommends a floating reference. We therefore followed this recommendation.

Quote from https://www.unicode.org/standard/versions/ :

Since Unicode is an open standard, it is important not to over-specify the version number. Wherever the precise behavior of all Unicode characters needs to be cited, the full three-field version number should be used, as below in example (1).

    1. The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1.1
    2. The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1
    3. The Unicode Standard, Version 3.0 or later
    4. The Unicode Standard

Where the precise character repertoire is significant, but the precise character properties are not at issue, then the third field can be omitted, as in example (2). Where some basic level of content is all that is important, phrasing such as in example (3) can be used. Where the important information is simply the overall architecture and semantics of the Unicode Standard, the version can be omitted entirely, as in example (4).

-- end quote


I'm not reading a strong recommendation from that.

We have a C++ portability impediment if different implementations support different
named character repertoires, given the named-universal-character production.
And that's squarely a C++ concern, not a Unicode one.

> Has someone reached out to them (or is one listening now?) to understand if they’ve considered the specific issue in front of us?

A liaison is on this reflector, Robin Leroy.

Jens