Annex E isn't hurting anyone, and its presence highlighted
an impedance mismatch in the understanding of R3 between
Unicode and WG21. Keeping the Annex does no harm, and
might help people understand the (intended) relationship
between C++ and UAX #31.

Jens


On 26/10/2022 17.55, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
> Please review the following. If you agree with the proposed change and have no further information to add, then there is no need to respond. If you disagree with the proposed change, have corrections or new information to offer, or have comments on the candidate polls, then *please reply by Monday, October 31st*.
>
>
> FR Annex E [uaxid] <http://eel.is/c++draft/uaxid> Shorten contents and integrate with [lex.name]
>
> GitHub nbballot issue #411 <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/411>.
>
>
> Comment:
>
> The usefulness of that clause is debatable.
>
> Please state in [lex.name] the set of rules/profiles followed by c++ identifiers, rather than listing all of the rules that do not apply.
>
>
> Proposed change:
>
> Only state "C++ conforms to UAX31 by meeting the requirements R1 “Default Identifiers” and R4 “Equivalent Normalized Identifiers” and remove [uaxid]
>
>
> SG16 chair notes:
>
> As discussed in the 2022-10-19 SG16 telecon <https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings#october-19th-2022>, this comment has interaction with US-64.
>
>
> Candidate polls:
>
> * [FR-XX]: SG16 recommends accepting the comment in the direction of the proposed change.
> * [FR-XX]: SG16 recommends rejecting the comment on the basis that explicit indication of Unicode requirement conformance, non-conformance, or inapplicability is useful.
>
> Tom.
>
>