This is the second SG16 mailing list review that I previously
communicated we would conduct this week.

*Poll: Forward P2873R2 <https://wg21.link/p2873r2> (Remove Deprecated
Locale-Category Facets for Unicode from C++26) to LEWG*

Please respond with +1 if you are in favor of the poll and -1 if you
believe this paper needs further review in an SG16 meeting in which
case, please also summarize your concerns.

Please reply before our February 5th meeting.

Note that a +1 response does not indicate that you approve of the paper;
it only indicates that you believe the paper adequately addresses and/or
represents SG16 related concerns, either in the proposed design itself
or in prose that adequately describes such concerns and the options for
addressing them. The goal is to ensure the paper presents sufficient
information for LEWG to make a well informed decision.

SG16 previously reviewed P2873R0 <https://wg21.link/p2873r0> during its
2023-05-24
<https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings/blob/master/README-2023.md#may-24th-2023>
and 2023-10-25
<https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings/blob/master/README-2023.md#october-25th-2023>
(briefly and tangentially, search for "P2873") meetings. These reviews
followed previous discussion of the same topic/proposal in the context
of P2139R2 (Reviewing Deprecated Facilities of C++20 for C++23)
<https://wg21.link/p2139r2> section D.22 (Deprecated locale category
facets [depr.locale.category]) during the 2020-07-22 SG16 meeting
<https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings/blob/master/README-2020.md#july-22nd-2020>.
There was no consensus for removal during the 2020-07-22 review, but
there was consensus for no objection against removal (should LEWG decide
to do so despite no SG16 recommendation to remove). No concerns were
raised in the more recent reviews, but we never polled actually
forwarding the paper. What appears to have happened is that Inbal sent
it back to us following the first review with a request that the paper
be expanded to better explain why these features were deprecated to
begin with. The later revisions have not altered what is proposed
(beyond adding an annex C entry), but have significantly expanded the
history, the design concerns with these facets, the motivation for
deprecation, and the current implementation status with regard to the
deprecation.

Tom.