Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

On 7/1/24 02:06, mhx wrote:

Krishna Myneni wrote:
 

If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the
standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search
order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.

 IMHO, the committee should refrain from adding restrictions
that only serve to make systems 'not standard' because of non-issues.
 -marcel

Would you please state more clearly how this is related to the present discussion? There is no proposal to add restrictions.
Currently we are discussing the merits and pitfalls of 0 SET-ORDER. I am suggesting that a change in the wording of the standard is needed to avoid the inference that a minimum search order is always present which provides specific words listed in the standard.
--
Krishna