Re: [idn] summary of reordering discussion

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

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