On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 09:04, Jens Maurer via Core <core@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

On 02/07/2020 07.39, Tom Honermann wrote:
> On 7/1/20 3:28 AM, Jens Maurer wrote:

>> Maybe replace "associated character encoding" -> "associated literal encoding"
>> globally to avoid the mention of "character" here.
> Despite the use of the "C" word, "character encoding" is more consistent
> with Unicode terminology. Though if we really want to be consistent, we
> should use "character encoding form" (which ISO/IEC 10646 then calls
> simply "encoding form"). This is something we could discuss at the SG16
> meeting next week.

The paper is in CWG's court; involving SG16 is not helpful at this stage
absent more severe concerns that would involve sending back the paper
as a CWG action. That said, everybody (including members of SG16) are
invited to CWG telecons to offer their opinion.

off-topic remarks: Since we'd be using a new term such as
"literal encoding" here, I don't think Unicode will get into our
way. I'd like to point out that "character encoding" (also in the
Unicode meaning) sounds like a character-at-a-time encoding, which
we expressly don't want to require. So, choosing a different term
than one that has Unicode semantic connotations seems wise.

literal encoding is a less ambiguous term either way.

We need a terminology such that we can distinguish the encoding of literals from that of runtime strings, literal (associated) encoding achieves that.