I feel like the intent of this article is ambiguous. It reads like there is no interest for a descriptive standard and is arguing for one. However, it ends by c

I feel like the intent of this article is ambiguous. It reads like there is no interest for a descriptive standard and is arguing for one. However, it ends by calling out the standard work in a single sentence. I was expecting to have to call it out as I read the article. I can assume others might not already know about it and miss the last sentence. As for the motivating example, to me it feels weak from my own experience. In my ~20 years of C++ experience, I've never consulted the standard, in part because of lack of access but also because of the barrier of standardese. I've instead consulted reference documentation geared towards programmers. Even the Ferrocene block they quote, I can see it being hard to connect the dots. That isn't to say no standard is needed but I doubt most developers will use it.