On the questions posted: 1. Efficient - I accepted that reordering produce a shorter ACE string, sometimes as much as 20%. This means instead of a "zq--zxcvbnmasdfg" label, I get a "zq--zxcvbnmasd". I do not buy the arguments it is helpful to naked eye, to memorised or save RAM however.
2. Compression efficient in future since statistic - Lee's counter that compression "always SHORTER labels than usual". Mathematically, it can be proven this is wrong (very basic pigeon hole principle). 3. Referencing from established I18N organisation - ISO14651 is deem inappropriate and I agree with it. No alternative was proposed. 4. Stability of reordering - Lee's countered with the arguments that reordering tables would never changed. I am not sure if that is possible but I agree with the assessment that it is possible to design reordering to be stable. However, I like to see explictive statement in future draft. 5. Future additional of code points / changes to reordering - Lee's proposal is a two prefix solution, using prefix as a versioning tag. I do not like to solve a problem by creating others, especially one which makes it even more complex. Lee have yet to address the process of how future additional of code points or changes to reordering could be done. (IDN WG is not going to exist forever...I dream of finishing our work one day). 6. Reordering is never ending task - Lee's countered that so is Nameprep. My thoughts is two wrong dont make one right. (OTOH, Nameprep which is based on UTC work have explicit principles on how it can be done. And Nameprep is not subjective to frequency analysis changes which reordering is) Of the people participate in the reordering discussion Martin Duerst - explicit objection Mark Davis - not very supportive, not explicit Adam Costello - (no conclusion from comments) Doug Ewell - explicit objection Paul Hoffman - explicit objection Eric Brunner-William - somewhat supportive, not explicit Kenny Huang - (no conclusion from comments) James Seng - explicit objection Karlsson Kent - explicit objection Erik Nordmark - not very supportive David Hopwood - (no conclusion from comments) This is my rough read of the discussion on reordering so far (please correct me, and apologise in advance, if I am wrong). (Wearing my co-chair's hat) It is not a vote or even a strawpoll here obviously but I am trying to get a feel of the group consensus. But if these discussion is any indication of the group consensus, it does not indicate very little support for reordering. If there is other comments, please bring them forward soon. Thanks. -James Seng
