This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] [BZ 17588 13064] Update UTF-8 charmap and width to Unicode 7.0.0
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Pravin Satpute <psatpute at redhat dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, Mike FABIAN <mfabian at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:18:34 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [BZ 17588 13064] Update UTF-8 charmap and width to Unicode 7.0.0
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <573624784 dot 8871393 dot 1416848051220 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com> <orzjb3o7yf dot fsf at free dot home> <s9dy4qir6fu dot fsf at ari dot site> <orfvce7y90 dot fsf at free dot home> <s9d388duu5r dot fsf at ari dot site> <orioh35mbq dot fsf at free dot home> <20141223111038 dot GA5172 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <119234933 dot 5523688 dot 1422972847328 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com> <or7fvnlbeo dot fsf at livre dot home> <orwq3njuvc dot fsf at livre dot home> <54E23EC9 dot 5020400 at redhat dot com> <ortwyig5xa dot fsf at livre dot home> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1502190055460 dot 24016 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 02/18/2015 08:19 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> There's also the matter of updating __STDC_ISO_10646__ in stdc-predef.h.
> Unicode 7.0 claims to correspond to ISO/IEC 10646:2012 plus amendments 1
> and 2 (and one extra character). Unfortunately I can find no sign of
> amendment 2 ever having been published; it looks rather like it was
> subsumed into ISO/IEC 10646:2014. Wikipedia claims that corresponds to
> Unicode 7.0 (which would imply 201409L as version), but I can't find any
> authoritative information, either on the Unicode website or after looking
> through lots of SC2 documents, to confirm if there are indeed no
> characters in 10646:2014 that aren't in Unicode 7.0.
I have submitted a question to the Unicode Consortium to answer this.
Proving there are no characters in 10646:2014 that aren't in Unicode 7.0
is going to be a difficult slog. Someone from the relevant groups has
to answer the question for us.
I went through SC2 documents from the Canadian side and found that
10646:2012 amendement 2 did go to ITTF for FDAM and a summary of votes
shows it passed. However, it seems the secretariat changed at that point
and perhaps everything was delayed until the 2014 standard.