From ybf2u@virginia.edu Sun Mar 26 11:36:47 1995 Received: from moose.cs.indiana.edu by whale.cs.indiana.edu (5.65c/9.4jsm) id AA26873; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 11:36:47 -0500 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by moose.cs.indiana.edu (5.65c/9.4jsm) id AA20086; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 11:36:44 -0500 Received: from curry.edschool.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03032; 26 Mar 95 11:36 EST Received: from cisco-slip23.acc.Virginia.EDU (cisco-slip23.acc.Virginia.EDU [128.143.7.203]) by curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA47487; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 11:36:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199503261636.LAA47487@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU> From: Yitna Firdyiwek Date: Sun, 26 Mar 95 12:26:40 -500 To: fisseha@gerbil.cig.mot.com, ybf2u@curry.edschool.virginia.edu, dmulholl@cs.indiana.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla/1.0N (Windows) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Appendix B Status: R selam yonas, danEl, I looked over Appendix B, thinking about it's status in the proposal. There are still some unresolved questions regarding how far we need to go in this area to satisfy the utc in this area. One the one hand, I know they do not see any need to bring in rendering issues into the design of the overall proposal. These are details best left up to software developers. On the other hand, any proposal that is unworkable from the rendering perspective, will obviously fail. Critics of our proposal will have to take this into consideration when reviewing our work (remember, that's one of the issues that prompted CSES to take on the project (i.e., the unworkable nature of the proposals we saw). So, in either case, having Appendix B worked out in advance will be good for us. But we will need to comb through the whole proposal carefully for any indications that the core of the proposal has and dependence on rendering issues (which I don't think it has). I must confess, however, that I am not able to uderstand the writing Appendix B very well. I was expecting something more like the SERA system--just showing how we have mapped the fidel onto ASCII. Aren't we, ultimately, just saying that an efficient mapping can be created using a Latin keyboard? I am not sure, but maybe that's what Appendix B is saying, only in another way. As I said, though, we need to be mindful that Appendix B is just _one possible_ rendering. Maybe we can be a bit more emphatic about that at the beginning of the text. Please let me know if I've missed the boat on this one. Otherwise, my vote would be to keep it, but in the background. Yitna