Count me as against the reordering; I think there has been some interesting work done on it, but I don't believe it is necessary for IDN.
Mark ————— Δός μοι ποῦ στῶ, καὶ κινῶ τὴν γῆν — Ἀρχιμήδης [http://www.macchiato.com] ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Seng/Personal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 09:32 Subject: [idn] (bias) summary of reordering discussion > 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 > > >
