Erik,
It is an assumption that this WG will actually produce something, which is
why "if any" appears twice in the first line of my remarks.
I appreciate the concern you expressed. I also appreciate that the question
"is IDNA/Nameprep/ACE enough?" can be answered in the negative, without the
reordering, even in the context of an ACE framework.
Restating the cautionary statement may helpful:
Because an additional reordering request may be made for some
as yet unspecified block of code-points, rough consensus for
the reordering a specified block of code-points is undesireable.
This doesn't seem like prudent process. An alternative statement is:
Because additional reordering requests will be made for some
as yet unspecified blocks of code-points over time, rough
consensus for a version identifier is desireable.
Eric
