On 5/27/20 2:21 PM, Steve Downey via SG16 wrote:
> Adopted the changes, except for the footnote, which corresponds to how
> the LaTeX is marked up, with the \footnote inline in the text. The
> footnote doesn't actually move, it's the rest of the text around it.

Ok, but that differs substantially from how it is presented in rendered
versions of the standard. Few look at the LaTeX.

Tom.

>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:24 AM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]
> <mailto:tom_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Steve. A few nit-picky comments below.
>
> In the new "Summary" section, in addition to noting that emoji
> will no longer be allowed in identifiers, I think it would be
> helpful to note that identifiers previously allowed for some
> scripts will no longer be allowed. This is mentioned in section
> 6.1, but I think also worthy of mention in the summary.
>
> In section 7, there is an instance of "C++. C++.".
>
> Section 7 states that N3146 "considered using UAX31". My reading
> of N3146 is that it did use UAX #31, but it adapted what was then
> called the "Alternative Identifier Syntax" option. Unicode 9
> renamed "Alternative Identifier Syntax" to "Immutable
> Identifiers". The relevant text from N3146 is:
>>
>> The set of UCNs *disallowed* in identifiers in C and C++ should
>> exactly match the specification in [AltId], *with the following
>> additions*: all characters in the Basic Latin (i.e. ASCII, basic
>> source character) block, and all characters in the Unicode
>> General Category "Separator, space".
>>
> [AltId] corresponds to:
>>
>> Unicode Standard Annex #31: Unicode Identifier and Pattern
>> Syntax, "Alternative Identifier Syntax",
>> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr31/tr31-11.html#Alternative_Identifier_Syntax
>>
>
> Section 7 also states, "The Unicode standard has since made
> stability guarantees about identifiers, and created the XID_Start
> and XID_Continue properties to alleviate the stability concerns
> that existed in 2010." However, the Unicode 5.2 version of UAX
> #31 referenced by N3146 does reference XID_Start and
> XID_Continue. It looks to me like the XID properties have been
> around since at least 2005 and Unicode 4. Perhaps the XID
> properties were not stable at that time? Regardless, it looks
> like the quoted sentence needs an update.
>
> In section 9.3, the sub-sections are arguably out of order. The
> first two sub-sections are for R1 and R4 (requirements that are
> met), and the remaining sub-sections list requirements that are
> not met (including R1a, R1b, R2, and R3). I think the sub-section
> order should follow the requirement order (R1, R1a, R1b, R2, R3,
> R4, ...)
>
> In section 10, the end of the first paragraph appears to be
> missing an "XID"; "... character classes XID_Start and _Continue."
>
> In the wording for [lex.name <http://lex.name>]p1, the footnote is
> moved into the paragraph, but still states "footnote" instead of
> "note". If this is because Jens indicated this is how the editors
> expect relocation of a footnote to be communicated, then ignore
> this comment.
>
> In the wording for [lex.name <http://lex.name>]p1, the copied
> footnote text doesn't match the WP. There is a missing "\u in".
>
> In the annex wording for X.2 R1, can we avoid duplicating the
> grammar specification from [lex.name <http://lex.name>]?
>
> Tom.
>
> On 5/26/20 4:51 PM, Steve Downey via SG16 wrote:
>> Find attached a draft of the UAX31 paper for discussion.
>> Viewable at
>> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/steve-downey/papers/blob/master/generated/p1949.html
>> Source at
>> https://github.com/steve-downey/papers/blob/master/p1949.md
>>
>> (note that github doesn't format the same way that mpark's WG21
>> format does)
>>
>
>