Michael Everson wrote to the unicode list: > Philippe Verdy wrote to that same list: > >It's a shame that someone like you invest so much in an area that > >would better be specified by other communities. > > Is it indeed.
Thanks for not flaming me about what you could have considered as a personal attack. It was quite frontal, I admit it was a needed shock, and I hope that you did not feel frustrated about your valuable work. It's just that the recent tone of discussions in the list was probably frustrating a lot of people wishing to contribute, even if they made errors or gave some sentences that could be wrongly interpreted beyond what was really intended. It's hard to be both concise and precise in simple discussion emails and we can admit errors more silently provided that they don't affect specifications that do really need urgent clarification when they are ambiguous. Discussions are there to allow expliciting concepts that are or may be ambiguous. No need to insult anyone here if he has not understood some problem or concept, or not used the more appropriate terms in something that was not intended to be kept in archives. So I will try to be more concise, but I urge readers stop flaming me about the possible interpretation of a single word, as it occurs too often. It is those reactions that required me to be more explicit about what I meant, but this was not a way to create more assertions or specifications. If I meant to specify something exhaustively, this would not be on this list, but I'd call for a separate review, and I would take much more time to reread my document before submitting it for review (and this could still contain errors or omissions as I work alone on these Unicode-related subjects). Thanks. Philippe. __________________________________________________________________ << ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside Newsletters for me You can use it too - and it's FREE! http://www.ellaforspam.com
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
