[byte.string] Footnote 131 is not entirely accurate

Footnote 131, attached to [byte.string]p4, states:

131. A string-literal, such as "abc", is a static NTBS.

In practice, we might mean a plain-string-literal as that removes the potential encoding-prefix. However, plain-string-literal is a lexical part of the grammar, and it is only the full string-literal grammar that is associated with an object.

Perversely, since we added the ability to include named unicode code points in string literals by use of named-universal-characters, there is no guarantee that even a plain-string-literal would be a static NTBS unless we restrict its contents to the basic literal character set (as we guarantee each member of the basic literal character set can be encoded in a single byte).

As this is just a footnote we might not care that we are not precise, and the specific cited example is correct. However the note does seem over-generalized, and we could weaken to say that "some" string literals are ..., or "often" string literals are ...

Alternatively, we might consider the footnote more trouble than is worth correcting, as just strike the footnote? Or maybe move a more precise [Note: ... --- end note] into the main text?

I am happy to work on a resolution, if we have an agreed preference for how to proceed.
We could also close this issue as NAD if we think there is nothing to correct.

Start with footnote 131 attached to [byte.string]p4 and review the cited string-literal, plain-string-literal, and grammar wording in the draft. Check the basic literal character set provisions, then determine whether the footnote should be narrowed, moved into a note, removed, or closed as NAD. Done means an agreed editorial resolution is reflected in the draft.