Looks good to me. Thank you, Tom.

-- HT

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 6:01 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>