It seems to me that Dave (and I) have raised two sorts of issues
which are very different in character than, e.g., bidi and
unicode 3.2. One has to do with the _style_ of the documents,
e.g., to paraphrase Dave (I hope accurately), whether they
specify a protocol or outline an implementation.
(i) If there is any question at all about how a given codepoint
...
(ii) If there is a substantive claim that the document cannot be
implemented in an interoperable way without out-of-band
profiling or oral tradition --and I think Dave has made exactly
that claim, although in different language-- then either
* the document must be fixed to reflect that fact (and,
...
* the document must be fixed to eliminate the ambiguity/
...
* the documents should be published as Experimental, not
...
* someone needs to come up with a persuasive case that
Dave (and I) have misread and misinterpreted the
document. And, procedurally, I believe that case needs
Yes, these are the set of available choices.