From ae0ba115fefd07df2d733846e94e66474ee60df3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Daniel=20Kr=C3=BCgler?= <daniel.kruegler@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 20:16:47 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Improve issue wording after feedback from submitter

---
 xml/issue3976.xml | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/xml/issue3976.xml b/xml/issue3976.xml
index 799d7b2bd3..39c51c34a1 100644
--- a/xml/issue3976.xml
+++ b/xml/issue3976.xml
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ sentence, such as an <tt>allocator_type</tt> member. Perhaps we want to say a co
 type <tt>X</tt> is allocator-aware using allocator <tt>A</tt> if [&hellip;], and then that <tt>basic_string</tt> and
 containers that are not otherwise allocator aware are are treated as-if they were
 allocator-aware using <tt>std::allocator&lt;typename X::value_type&gt;</tt> (where <tt>value_type</tt>
-is already guaranteed to exist by the basic container requirements).
+is already guaranteed to exist by the <i>container</i> requirements, <sref ref="[container.reqmts]"/> p1).
 </p>
 </discussion>