Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 10:53:00 -0500
Picking up on just one point:
> On Dec 22, 2025, at 10:12 AM, Corentin Jabot <corentinjabot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> sure, we could do that. but "new-line" is not really specified anyway, we might want to clarify we mean Unicode line break (p2348 tried to do that, or do something along this line. Including fixing that new line has a different meaning in the library wording)
My reading of Table 1 — Basic character set [tab:lex.charset.basic] is that “new-line”
is the glyph for U+000A LINE FEED, and per [lex.charset]p2
“In this document, glyphs are often used to identify elements of the basic character set.”
If that is not the intended reading, do we make that clear anywhere?
AlisdairM
> On Dec 22, 2025, at 10:12 AM, Corentin Jabot <corentinjabot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> sure, we could do that. but "new-line" is not really specified anyway, we might want to clarify we mean Unicode line break (p2348 tried to do that, or do something along this line. Including fixing that new line has a different meaning in the library wording)
My reading of Table 1 — Basic character set [tab:lex.charset.basic] is that “new-line”
is the glyph for U+000A LINE FEED, and per [lex.charset]p2
“In this document, glyphs are often used to identify elements of the basic character set.”
If that is not the intended reading, do we make that clear anywhere?
AlisdairM
Received on 2025-12-22 15:53:18