On 5/27/20 8:35 PM, Hubert Tong via SG16 wrote:
> Comments that don't affect the normative content:
>
> No need for comma (and attendant typo) in "unassigned , or unnecessary".
>
> Should SG16 be still listed as part of the audience?
>
>
> This sentence is ambiguous:
> This proposal does not address some potential security concerns, so
> called homoglyph attacks, where letters that appear the same may be
> treated as distinct.
>
> Is the intended scope of the "potential security concerns" coincident
> with "homoglyph attacks"?

Perhaps the paper could make it explicit that the proposed changes
protect against normalization based security concerns, but not against
homoglyph security concerns.

Tom.

>
>
> Replace:
> Defending against such attacks is complex and evolving
> with
> Methods of defense against such attacks is complex and evolving
>
> -- HT
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:01 PM Steve Downey via SG16
> <sg16_at_[hidden] <mailto:sg16_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> Find attached D1949 with edits as instructed in telecon
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden] <mailto:SG16_at_[hidden]>
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
>
>