Dean Snyder wrote:
Two basic models for encoding cuneiform have been discussed - dynamic and
static.
<snip>
Recently I proposed we re-think the decision made at the Initiative for Cuneiform Encoding conferences to statically encode cuneiform. The reaction has been mixed, but I consider only 2 of the objections as material. (I have appended to this email excerpts from the various reactions along with some of my responses.):
Actually you omitted from the principal part of your post the one that actually matters the most, that the issue of what model to follow has been discussed, including your model, and more importantly, the model to follow has been chosen. The decision was to follow the static model and not your proposed dynamic model. As a consequence, the recent submission made to the UTC follows the static model.
It is not a technical issue but one of process. Standards are developed based on decisions following discussion and debate. Your model has been discussed and was not chosen. As one of the organizers of the two ICE conferences and an active participant in all of those discussions, you are aware of the discussions and the decision to not follow your proposal. To reiterate a proposal in the standards process that was not chosen simply disrupts the standards process.
People have invested a lot of time and effort getting the proposal to this point and to abandon it now, is ill-advised and wasteful. Not to mention inconsistent with any orderly notion of standards development. At some point decisions have to be made and in this case have been made, on how to proceed. The time has come to proceed.
Patrick
-- Patrick Durusau Director of Research and Development Society of Biblical Literature [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
