-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 749
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update references to Unicode Standard & Annexes. #5826
Conversation
Currently we have a normative reference to ISO 10646 (Unicode 13.0), a floating normative reference to UAX44 (= Unicode 15.0), bibligraphy items for Unicode (14.0), text segmentation UAX (12.0), and identifier syntax (13.0). This align the bibligraphy items and mentions of Unicode to refer to 15.0. Mention of Unicode 14 in the specification of print are also updated to refer to Unicode 15. No further changes are necessary to comply to the updated standard and annexes.
source/back.tex
Outdated
2020-02-13 [viewed 2021-06-08]. | ||
Available from: \url{https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr31/tr31-33.html} | ||
Edited by Mark Davis and Robin Leroy. Revision 37; issued for Unicode 15.0.0. | ||
2022-08-31 [viewed 2022-09-14]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
2022-08-31 [viewed 2022-09-14]. | |
2022-08-31 [viewed 2022-09-14]. |
For the bibliography references, I'd like CWG and/or LWG review / approval that we're still good with the semantics described in the updated version. (Alternatively, some review in the editorial group that Unicode did at most editorial updates to the relevant sections.) For the references in iostreams.tex, we should instead refer to ISO 10646 and avoid the numerical section references (because it may change when updates are published). |
I agree with Jens, changing the references is not just editorial. |
But this is not a behavior described by ISO 10646. References in Unicode do not happen to change very often. I'd have not objection to remove the numerical reference though |
Ah, ok, then we should leave Unicode in there. |
In any case, it looks like we want an LWG issue here. Can we close the editorial issue? |
If someone wants to put that diff in html and then back again, please feel
free to do so.
Otherwise I'll make a NB comment so that we don't loose track of it.
Cheers.
…On Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 14:47 Thomas Köppe ***@***.***> wrote:
In any case, it looks like we want an LWG issue here. Can we close the
editorial issue?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5826 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKX763EN4TLCUAQJPXDTKLV6HCMJANCNFSM6AAAAAAQL6THDM>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Since changing normative references is not editorial, I don't see how it would be appropriate to make this change without WG21 oversight and record keeping. But it sounds like filing an LWG issue would be a bit simpler than filing an NB comment! |
@tkoeppe , the bibliography changes are not per se normative (but may still present a larger lever than what we're happy to apply editorially). |
It seems possible to keep only the undated reference in [intro.refs] if ISO/IEC 10646 is not appropriate due to
|
I'm not sure how helpful that is. New ISO/IEC 10646 standards are released every three years, but new revisions of the Unicode Standard are released every year. The ISO does release amendments each year to synchronize the current ISO/IEC 10646 standard with new releases of the Unicode Standard. In order to reference a consistent set of Unicode features while still referencing both ISO/IEC 10646 and the Unicode Standard, we would need to somehow state that implementors consult the version of ISO/IEC 10646 + amendment that corresponds to the version of the Unicode Standard being used. We might also need to specify a minimum Unicode Standard version to ensure referenced features are present. |
Seems like that fits the stated needs. |
Thank you, @JohelEGP, that reference is helpful. I agree that we have the ability to reference both in a consistent fashion. That still leaves us with the downsides of 1) requiring us to word the dependency relationship between the two standards, 2) requiring implementors to consult both standards, and 3) resolving any discrepancies that arise between the two standards. Those downsides aren't exorbitant, but they are complications that would be avoided by solely referring to the Unicode Standard. |
If those downsides make the ISO Standard not appropriate, it seems to me that the first quote of #5826 (comment) can be applied to refer only to the Unicode Standard. |
Currently we have a normative reference to ISO 10646 (Unicode 13.0), a floating normative reference to UAX44 (= Unicode 15.0), bibligraphy items for Unicode (14.0),
text segmentation UAX (12.0), and identifier syntax (13.0).
This align the bibligraphy items and mentions of Unicode to refer to 15.0.
Mention of Unicode 14 in the specification of print are also updated to refer to Unicode 15.
No further changes are necessary to comply to the updated standard and annexes.