Re: [idn] ACE37,AMCW and LDUDE

[Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>]

I would *really* like to avoid complex reordering of codepoints, because
it would require fairly large tables (that would have to be implemented
on some machines of modest capability) and would be error-prone.  

I also fear that this kind of mapping would encourage greater use
of proxies over end-to-end implementations, with all of the implications
for reliability, control, delay, etc. that would result from this design 
choice.  I don't think we want to encourage a walled garden.

I could see having a very simple reordering of codepoints in order
to increase the efficiency of DUDE for ideographic languages.  But my
(admittedly biased) sense is that we're fast approaching the point
of diminishing returns.  Just how important is it to provide for names 
that are one or two ideographs longer?

Keith