<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Thanks Steve,<br><br>now I dare do some more work on the Norwegian files. I have been puting it up for some time because of the changes and the need to do things over - now I hope that things will work steadily.<br>(Sorry I have to wait a little longer, because of other pressing work, but I look forward to seet myself down to re-enter hundreds of signs, and quite a few that I never entered before too).<br><br>Ingvild
<br><br><div>> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:02:37 -0500<br>> From: slevin@SIGNPUDDLE.NET<br>> Subject: Re: Put the blame on me ;-)<br>> To: SW-L@LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU<br>> <br>> Hi Alan,<br>> <br>> Thanks for you comments.<br>> <br>> On 9/14/11 9:32 AM, Alan Post wrote:<br>> > I have struggled just to keep up with the changes to SWIS and<br>> > ISWA--I've had to convert my database three or four times, which<br>> > sometimes takes me many months to get around to--during which I<br>> > don't use SignWriting. :-(<br>> <br>> Yes, I understand this very well. Every time I put out a new standard, <br>> I make additional busy work for myself and others. Back in 2008, I was <br>> hoping that I had a stable standard, but every time that I tried to use <br>> the standard, I always found a serious flaw that could not be <br>> overlooked. I would find that my code libraries were becoming overly <br>> complicated and slow. The only way to address the various flaws was <br>> with a new encoding.<br>> <br>> > I *love* SWIS2. I am producing documents with it that are so, so<br>> > beautiful compared to SWIS. I don't wish to complain about where<br>> > we are, but to articulate just how expensive changes are, to me.<br>> > Even seemingly minor issues can be major headaches for me--I would<br>> > much rather be in the business of *using* SignWriting!<br>> Agreed! I love SWIS 2 as well. The code is simple and clean. It does <br>> what I want it to do. I have plans to expand the code and there are no <br>> more serious flaws that will get in the way.<br>> <br>> The ISWA 2010 has been stable since it's release in 2010 and the Unicode <br>> proposal will hopefully be approved next year.<br>> <br>> There will not be any more changes to the encoding so you will not need <br>> to convert your database again. Any writing you do today will still be <br>> valid years from now.<br>> <br>> Fortunately, the question of writing style is outside of the encoding.<br>> <br>> Regards,<br>> -Steve<br>> <br></div> </div></body>
</html>