Just a simple note: I am writing this "as a contributor, in which case he can be ignored as just another argumentative idiot". If I write as co-chair, I will state so.
ps: You never amaze me with your subtle insult. But I shall pass on your flamebait. I am not interest to argue with you on irrelevant personality issues which have no technical barings on the work for IDN. -James Seng > I'd like to hear from the other co-chair if, in his opinion, James is > writing as a contributor, in which case he can be ignored as just another > argumentative idiot, at least on this issue, or if he is debating the > authors of a draft, substituting his (odd) technical judgement for that > of the working group as a whole. > > James' opinion of himself, or his opinion of myself, isn't that hard to > guess, so lets just look at what syntactic guidance we've got, resulting > label semantics, and scale. > > > > For 2, TSCONV intend to reduce 2^n , every one do not have to register > > > 2^n > > > > TC-SC is not a 2^n problem. TC-SC have basically around 2-4 variant in > > practice. Others nonsense variant can be constructed but it bears no > > meanings usually. > > Incidently, the earlier "contributor" of some (undocumented) "supreme system" > actually "got it", and dropped that part of his proposal that had equivalent > scaling properties to that we are discussing when we are in fact discussing > the necessity and sufficiency of intermediate transformations -- mappings > and the tables or algorithms required. > > Eric >
