I applied the updates requested during the 2022-06-08 SG16 telecon to
the draft revision
<https://raw.githack.com/tahonermann/std-proposals/master/d2572r0.html>
(reload; now dated 2022-06-11). Assuming no obvious typos or other
errors are identified, this revision will appear as P2572R0 in the June
mailing. Please let me know if you feel any of the changes are not
inline with the changes requested during the telecon.

Changes since the previous revision
<https://rawcdn.githack.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings/b37ca29e4d5802aeccaf3fe14568ee7427b2c19e/presentations/2022-06-08-d2572r0.html>
include:

  * Addition of a drafting note regarding the use of "specifier" vs
    "option" for /std-format-spec/ grammar productions.
  * Addition of a new example, s8, that illustrates the effect of a
    formatting argument with characters that have an estimated width
    other than 1.
  * Merge of note X into note 3. This wasn't requested in the review,
    but was motivated by the request for a note that the examples with
    the clown face emoji demonstrate behavior of a character with an
    estimated width other than 1. The merger of the note and correlation
    with the examples enabled more elaborate description of the examples.
  * Addition of a missing "the" in [format.string.std]p11.

I received negative feedback regarding not publishing a revision of this
paper with a "P" designation in an official mailing prior to now. That
feedback was mostly concerned with the lack of a recorded change history
in the paper itself as the proposal evolved with successive reviews. I
admit to being experimental here. I have an impression (for which I have
no evidence) that people tend to read the first revision of a paper, but
mostly only look at the change history in successive revisions of a
paper unless they become involved in further discussions or wording
review (I know I am guilty of this). Depending on the quality of the
change history, I suspect this can lead to a reader having a skewed
impression of the evolved design. With this paper, my goal was to have
the first revision of the paper reflect the SG16 consensus as it emerged
from our study group such that the change history in later revisions
would reflect its history through the rest of the committee. Any
additional commentary on this approach is welcome. Given the negative
commentary received so far, I intend to publish earlier next time. I
intend to continue scheduling reviews of draft revisions of papers in
accordance with authors' wishes.

Tom.