Thanks, Steve! What did you use to generate the marked up diff?
Whatever it was produced a great result!

Tom.

On 9/16/21 5:31 PM, Steve Downey wrote:
> I've attached a marked up rich difference between the two versions on
> github. It does look like it's a sensible state, although yes, wording
> will need updates.
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 3:38 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]
> <mailto:tom_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> I attached a draft R1 with changes I had previously worked on. I
> briefly looked at it and I don't think I left it in a half-baked
> state, but it would be worth diffing it against the P0 revision
> with a reasonable HTML diffing tool to make sure. The "Changes
> since P2071R0" section suggest I addressed the issues raised in
> Prague.
>
> The todo list I have includes:
>
> * Add discussion regarding the use of \N{...} in identifiers.
> * Add a proposal option to allow use of \N{...} in identifiers.
> * Rebase wording on the current WD; particularly due to the
> adoption of P2029.
> * Implement the proposal.
>
> Richard Smith had requested that \N{...} be allowed in identifiers
> for consistency with \u and \U. We should, of course, just
> acknowledge that Richard is always right and do that :)
>
> Wording changes may additionally be needed for P2314. Maybe for
> one or more of Corentin's recent papers as well.
>
> Tom.
>
> On 9/15/21 3:21 PM, Steve Downey wrote:
>> https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/798#issuecomment-585750666
>> <https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/798#issuecomment-585750666>
>> has notes from JF
>>
>> EWG Prague Thursday afternoon:
>>
>> We’re interested in supporting named universal character escapes.
>>
>> SF F N A SA
>> 14 5 0 0 0
>>
>> This should further support aliases.
>>
>> SF F N A SA
>> 18 2 1 0 0
>>
>> It should further be case insensitive.
>>
>> SF F N A SA
>> 0 6 6 9 2
>>
>> It should further support UAX44-LM2 with arbitrary spaces and dashes.
>>
>> SF F N A SA
>> 1 4 5 8 5
>>
>> The paper is /not/ tentatively ready yet. We want to see the
>> updated paper before marking it as tentatively ready.
>>
>>
>> I missed Prague, but this might be enough, if you don't have any
>> more detailed notes. I can check the wiki as well.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:46 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]
>> <mailto:tom_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/15/21 2:31 PM, Steve Downey wrote:
>> > If I am reading the github correctly, EWG would like to see
>> some
>> > revision before picking it up again. Is there something I can
>> > help with? This looks like it's really close and desired
>> and quite
>> > possible for 23?
>>
>> Yes. I recall there not being much to do, but I need to find
>> my list of
>> what that is. I would very much appreciate the help. I'll
>> hunt down that
>> list and try to get it to you later today or tomorrow.
>>
>> Tom.
>>