Comments that don't affect the normative content:

No need for comma (and attendant typo) in "unassigned , or unnecessary".

Should SG16 be still listed as part of the audience?

This sentence is ambiguous:
This proposal does not address some potential security concerns, so called homoglyph attacks, where letters that appear the same may be treated as distinct.

Is the intended scope of the "potential security concerns" coincident with "homoglyph attacks"?

Perhaps the paper could make it explicit that the proposed changes protect against normalization based security concerns, but not against homoglyph security concerns.

Tom.

Replace:

Defending against such attacks is complex and evolving

with

Methods of defense against such attacks is complex and evolving

-- HT

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:01 PM Steve Downey via SG16 <sg16@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

Find attached D1949 with edits as instructed in telecon

--
SG16 mailing list
SG16@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16