🚀 go-pugleaf

 > Thanks Nigel -- Fortunately (or unfortunately as the case may be) I
 > find that I had the document in my unread files all along.  Sorry to
 > bother you all with my untimely question.
 >
 > However, I was surprised (many of you out there will also be
 > surprised) that I was not offended with the draft, so I will not be
 > making any negative comments to my national body folks.
 >
 > I found the logic of it all to be rather good, and it does not mess up
 > the bit about the order of the OU elements.
 >
 > I must say though that it is not what I would have come up with, but
 > it looks OK to me.
 >
 > Best...\Stef

Funny enough, that was exactly my feeling: When I first heard from
J.Palme, that the ordering of the Orgunits is opposite to the
rest of the attributes I felt a lot of pain.
But when I looked into the draft document, it all looked logical and nice.
I think, I could live with it.
However, the lots of change of existing software to cope with that
will be enormous. But isn't that what always happens during
the development of standards to the "avantgarde"?
Greetings --- Ruedger