Thank you, Hubert, and my apologies for the misrepresentation. Here is
what I did:

  * Hubert pointed out a category error in the proposed wording change
    for the codecvt facets; "code point" is used where "code unit" would
    be more appropriate.
  * Hubert further explained that the first bullet describes the
    artifacts produced by an encoding where as the second bullet names
    an encoding; both bullets should be written such that they can be
    easily read as specifying encodings.
  * _Hubert pointed out that, in the proposed wording for the codecvt
    facets, the first bullet describes the artifacts produced by an
    encoding where as the second bullet names an encoding._
  * _Hubert stated that both bullets should be written such that they
    can be easily read as specifying encodings._

A reminder to everyone; I don't always capture your comments accurately,
so please do review and suggest corrections!

Tom.

On 2/7/23 2:31 PM, Hubert Tong wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for making the changes. I would like to request that the bullet
> about "code point"/"code unit" be struck. I do not recall initiating a
> comment that matches the recorded description. Indeed, "code point" is
> correct because it is being used in the sentence as the input to
> UTF-16 encoding.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Hubert Tong
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 3:37 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 1/25/23 1:40 PM, Hubert Tong wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Some comments/requests.
> Thank you, Hubert. I'm sorry for the delay in getting these
> updates applied.
>>
>> For "can be broadly applied", can we clarify by adding "(and thus
>> should only be used when a broad interpretation is actually
>> intended)".
>>
>> For:
>> Hubert pointed out a category error in the proposed wording
>> change for the codecvt facets; "code point" is used where "code
>> unit" would be more appropriate.
>>
>> the description of the category error that was raised should be
>> something like:
>> "the first bullet is a description of the artifacts produced by
>> an encoding, not of an encoding itself; the second bullet names
>> an encoding: both bullets should be written such that they can be
>> easily read as specifying encodings"
>
> Updates applied as follows:
>
> * Hubert stated that the "abstract character" definition from
> the Unicode Standard can be broadly applied_and thus should
> only be used when a broad interpretation is actually intended_.
> * ...
> * Hubert pointed out a category error in the proposed wording
> change for the codecvt facets; "code point" is used where
> "code unit" would be more appropriate.
> * _Hubert further explained that the first bullet describes the
> artifacts produced by an encoding where as the second bullet
> names an encoding; both bullets should be written such that
> they can be easily read as specifying encodings._
>
> Tom.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Hubert Tong
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 4:43 PM Tom Honermann via SG16
>> <sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> The summary for the SG16 meeting held January 11th, 2023 is
>> now available. For those that attended, please review and
>> suggest corrections.
>>
>> * https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings/#january-11th-2023
>>
>> No decisions were made at this meeting.
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>> --
>> SG16 mailing list
>> SG16_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
>>