RE: More woes with charmod draft

> > I did one substantive edit: the terms "producer" and "recipient" are no longer
> used anywhere in this document: I removed them and the associated Note.
> Interesting. I seem to remember they were very heavily used previously.
> How did you get rid of them?

They were used heavily in section 3.2 in the old document: the one that defined "include normalized" and "fully normalized" and such. That section withered away and finally disappeared during the creation of this document. Hardly any of the old document remains intact.

Without Early Uniform Normalization, most of those concepts are irrelevant, although I note that a couple of the terms used there ("suspect text") appear in the "requirements for normalizing specifications" section in the current document. Of course, that section is preserving requirements that came before for those specifications that followed the old CharMod document. Further descriptive text is probably needed in that section to explain what it is.
> >
> > It appears that the Nicol paper, quoted in Charmod since forever, now
> generates a 404. Should we bag the reference here? Note that the referring
> text is in our introduction and is directly quoting Charmod-Fundamentals. It's
> not important to this document, but it means charmod has a broken link.
> That's something that happens regularly about every 5 years. I first thought the
> domain had been given up. I wrote to Gavin via LinkedIn, because I don't have
> his latest email address. Later I noticed that the page has a copyright of Gavin
> Nicol, and some (compared to the paper) rather recent blog posts. Searching
> around a bit more, I found the paper alive http://www.mind-to-

> I hope to hear back from Gavin, but for
> the moment, that should do.

I saw the response and I'll check that my links match that. Thanks for doing that!


Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 15:48:14 UTC