From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Apr 01 2006 - 13:18:38 CST
Elliotte Harold <elharo at metalab dot unc dot edu> wrote:
> Did you mean to say that the UTC does *not* reject proposals, or that
> it sometimes does but not in this case? If the former, a word is
> missing. If the latter, this seems unnecessary, and reads a little
> funny. In that case, I suggest just deleting this sentence.
He meant the latter, that the UTC does reserve the option to reject a
proposal, and they did not do so in this case.
> If the disc is encoded at this time, are those properties then set in
> stone? Could we change them later?
Ha ha, I get it. "Set in stone."
> Perhaps most importantly, should I be worried that you posted this on
> April 1? :-)
I thought he was joking last year when he proposed INVERTED INTERROBANG,
in a proposal form with "2005-04-01" sprinkled all over the place -- in
bold even -- but it's been approved by UTC.
-- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 01 2006 - 13:20:04 CST