On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 at 16:55, Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Yes, I want more than WhatWG, and not just that.
>
> WG21 is not in the business of specifying character encodings, so we'd need
> to refer to another standard for the details of each encoding.
> > Please name a particular encoding that isn't covered by WhatWG, and
> point to the location of its specification.
>
> What are you talking about?
> WhatWG isn't an authority on ANY of those encodings.
>
> You know the iso-8859-XYZ is a standard setup by ISO. Utf-X is defined by
> the Unicode standard, the windows-Z also have supporting documents setup by
> Microsoft.
>
> The IANA list has references to the specs of the encoding defined by their
> enumeration.
>
> Why are we still having this discussion?
>

Because you keep digging yourself deeper?



> Please explain to me, and I would really like to know. How would the C++
> standard and C++ developers benefit from being able to transcode windows_874,
> be able to only transcode from Utf-16 big endian and little endia, but not
> be able to transcode to and from NATIVE utf-16.
> What are we doing?
>

Some of us are reading the paper that is the subject of the thread. Some of
us have also read the paper I named in the first sentence of the first
email of the thread: P2728. That proposes transcoding to/from all the
Unicode encodings.

This proposal is different.