Bruce Thomas wrote: > I took a good look at the re-ordering draft, and would like to offer > my opinion. The research is pretty thorough, and it is clear that a > (conceptually) simple approach will give us an improvement over > the non-re-ordered case. > > However, although the concept is simple, the details are complex. > It is easy to say that the complexity is buried in the code in some > library and will not affect us, but actually it will affect us, as > it has to be frozen into permanent, public document, and adds > a whole new dimension of complexity to the specification of > something which could have been quite simple.
Bruce, thanks for the going thru the draft & evaluation. Soobok Lee wrote: > Moreover, nameprep hidden complexity around NFKC is hidden in the UTR15 > document. REORDERINg has no external authority to quote character > frequency statistics in order to make the drafting work look simple > as nameprep refers to UTC NFKC. This is the biggest problem I have with reordering, ie, > Nameprep and reordering *deal with individual code points*. > That's the source of the inevitable document complexity. Comparing Nameprep & reordering isnt the right approach. You should compare the complexity vs the result. Nameprep complexity justify what it achieve. Reordering does not. -James Seng
