James, ... > information. Obviously there are many expert within this group does not > think reordering should be added. However, there are groups of users who > really wants it.
Nice to see you've got an open mind. Experts agree with you, users don't. A simple life is an easy one, neh? > 2. Eric suggest we do two proposal, one with reordering, one without, > then move on. Nope. I wrote that there is a question to the editors (of IDNA etc, not you and Zita, that would be a waste of time) on the ability to accomodate two divergent requirements in one set of texts. What I suggest is that reordering is manditory, and having shoved in the complexity for DOM policy evaluation in two browsers recently, complexity is a case I haven't seen made yet, except nominally, by those who hope to put the IDN solution in applications. I could be wrong, and someone with clue could have a case history to cite, with lines of code, text/data/bss numbers, and performance data, and that would be worth being wrong just to see, instead of the usual diet of IDN drek. > Please give your feedback thanks. How erratically polite. Eric
