Dear colleagues,
I agree with Michael's suggestion to remove EGIDS5 evidence, where there is other evidence. Where it is the only source for a code point we should provide specific evidence and sources for contemporary usage.
I also added numerous comments to the two documents - I would have done it on an online version preferably, but to avoid version conflicts I added comments to the word files. Several comments of mine contain suggested action items. On the whole, IP's review leaves me with the impression, that we have to work again on the repertoire. Particularly the additional evidence required for African languages will require quite a bit of work, and it is unclear to me why - as a general rule - IP seems to have higher demands towards the supporting evidence for African languages versus other languages.
Best,
Meikal