From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 14 2005 - 14:43:43 CST
From: "Peter Kirk" <email@example.com>
> On 13/04/2005 21:06, Otto Stolz wrote:
>> It would, however, be more useful to the general public, if you would
>> communicate your
>> knowledge through the official channels, ... This would amount to
>> pinpointing an actual error, or inaccuracy, in TUS
>> (by chapter and verse), collecting evidence for the error or suggested
>> checking the Errata page at <http://www.unicode.org/errata/>, wording a
>> and delivering all of this information to
> But I thought Ken had just told us that error reports on character names
> made through these channels would be ignored. In fact Ken's words were:
>>... both committees to decide that past a certain point
>>such defect reports would be noted but not acted upon, insofar
>>as they were requests for changes in names of published characters
>>in the standards.
> So isn't your advice just a waste of time?
Back in 1999, I received over 300 pieces of email asking me to certify that
(a) tools my company had written and given to people, (b) tools I had
written under contract, or (c) both were "Y2K compliant".
I finally put up a web page explaining why all of these people are basically
either stupid or insane (since none of the work I had done did anything at
all with dates and thus there was no issue here.
I closed with a bit of text that may provide context to the suggestion here:
---- If you have further questions, you may mail them to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please be aware of the fact that the server will throw all such inquiries away without review, so you will not receive an answer; but if it makes you feel better to send mail as some sort catharsis, then TSI has made the option available to you. ---- :-) MichKa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 14:42:52 CST