Re: [idn] draft about Tradition and Simplified Chinese Conversion[version01]

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

Just a simple note:

I am writing this "as a contributor, in which case he can be ignored as
just another argumentative idiot". If I write as co-chair, I will state
so.

ps: You never amaze me with your subtle insult. But I shall pass on your
flamebait. I am not interest to argue with you on irrelevant personality
issues which have no technical barings on the work for IDN.

-James Seng

> I'd like to hear from the other co-chair if, in his opinion, James is
> writing as a contributor, in which case he can be ignored as just
another
> argumentative idiot, at least on this issue, or if he is debating the
> authors of a draft, substituting his (odd) technical judgement for
that
> of the working group as a whole.
>
> James' opinion of himself, or his opinion of myself, isn't that hard
to
> guess, so lets just look at what syntactic guidance we've got,
resulting
> label semantics, and scale.
>
> > > For 2, TSCONV intend to reduce 2^n , every one do not have to
register
> > > 2^n
> >
> > TC-SC is not a 2^n problem. TC-SC have basically around 2-4 variant
in
> > practice. Others nonsense variant can be constructed but it bears no
> > meanings usually.
>
> Incidently, the earlier "contributor" of some (undocumented) "supreme
system"
> actually "got it", and dropped that part of his proposal that had
equivalent
> scaling properties to that we are discussing when we are in fact
discussing
> the necessity and sufficiency of intermediate transformations --
mappings
> and the tables or algorithms required.
>
> Eric
>