Eric,
> The process, if any, of future revision of thie WG's product, again, if any, > is important. Either there is none, and it is "permanent" until discarded, > or there is some, which may work (allowing semi-graceful revisioning). This is assuming that the WG actually produces something. My concern in the area of reordering is that incremental requests for supporting additional laguages/scripts for reordering benefits might mean that the WG never gets to deliver anything - there are just too many scripts/languages that can appear. Thus my concern is completely unrelated to the version issues others have brought up with respect to UTC. If the WG embarks on doing reordering for 1,2,3,4 languages/scripts how do we know that this will be sufficient? Next month there might be requests for a few more languages/scripts. Etc. Erik
