Thanks all,

I did update the paper to include the whole standard and get rid of the annexes references (except for UAX31, I think Steve is working on something?)
for __STDC_ISO_10646__, if we want to say something more meaningful, I'll need help with wording.

But we need to consider that this thing is usually defined by C and the C standard library.
And even if we got it to reference Unicode, how is that value useful to users?
Does it mean \N and UAX31 knows about unicode version X? Does it mean the C library has some support in classification functions? fmt? algorithms?
If we stick to the current version of the definition ("when stored in an object of type wchar_t, has the same value as the code point of that character"), then
we only care about whether it is greater or lower than 2003XX

> It would be helpful to retain a reference to the place where UTF-8 etc. is defined.
We use UTF-8 as well as other terminology without reference or pre-introduction throughout the standard.
Do you think we should keep this one specific reference in [depr.locale.stdcvt.req]?

On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 5:46 PM Mark Zeren <> wrote:



"The specified year and month are implementation-defined."
-> "The value is implementation-defined."

I would prefer if we could repurpose that macro to refer to the supported
Unicode version instead (by its release year/month).


[mzeren] Could we say that any date past a well-known, yet to be determined, date refers instead to Unicode?