Thanks for your feedback

A few things:

* It does not evolve a lot (Neither the database nor the proposal are forward looking - RFC3808 is from 2004) 
* There is nothing more complete (or more official)
* It has vendor buy in (form Microsoft and IBM for which it maps to their code page), the same names are also used by iconv on unix system
* It is widely used by browsers, mail clients
* We have experience with referencing rfc in the standards.
* If this is still a concern, we could duplicate the entire thing in the standard - which I would recommend against.

That standard registry is pivotal to the proposal portability. we need to agree on names and meaning.

I hope that helps,


On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 09:26, Peter Brett <pbrett@cadence.com> wrote:
Hi Corentin and SG16,

We discussed P1885R1 briefly in the British Standards Institute meeting yesterday.

We support the general direction of the paper and agree that it seeks to solve a real problem.  We support further work.

We have significant concerns about the proposal to rely on the IANA registry and RFC2978/RFC3808 process, including a normative reference to the Character Sets database.  The Character Sets database is not an International Standard and is maintained by a process that appears to provide neither the quality assurance nor the checks and balances built into the ISO process.

Best regards,