Carolyn, >Does that mean that a table ribbon in Quebec is by definition always less than >xx inches wide, and xx inches >long,regardless of the setting (a much longer table, for instance?) If so, I >still think that perhaps a more >interesting (for the international community of lacemakers) might have been a >more flexible definition that >still could be recognized as a table ribbon.
As I said before - I'm not positive about these things, my guess is that they had to describe something they had always seen and did their best. What do these things have in common? What defines them? It's not the easiest question to answer. Describe a traditional English Teapot. How does it differ from a regular teapot? You see the challenge? >Remember those of us who wanted to define lace as only that made with certain >neutral-colored threads? Absolutely, there were lots of surprised and then pleased looks at this part of the announcement at the Convention. "Did they say it MUST be at least two colors? Whoopee!" >Definitions of even the most traditional objects are subject to evolution, >don't you think? Again, I agree with you, but since the contest is set in one year, there may not be enough time for the lace ribbon to evolve much. And the definitions have been set. They aren't likely to change substantially. Lace in Peace, Laurie PS: A Canadian tells me that she's never heard of these table ribbons, but she is from British stock and not from Québec. So, perhaps, the Table Ribbons are more Québeçoise? - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
