On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 5:41 PM Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> 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.


Ah! Thanks for this. So it would be nice for someone to write a paper about
the issue, what we voted when and why, and I think the case would the be
pretty strong to change direction in a DR. Has anyone volunteered?



>
> > 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
>