🚀 go-pugleaf

rja@altair.cho.ge.com (Randall Atkinson) writes:

>[ The quoting here is getting confusing, so I'm putting Keld's remarks with
> the greater than symbol and Doug's remarks with the percent symbol. :-) rja ]

>In article <keld.670719584@dkuugin> keld@login.dkuug.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen) writes:
>gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes as a reply to an article of Keld's:

>I see no reason that the support provided in ANSI X3.159 is not
>adequate.  Keld has presented no such technical details and it
>seems to me to be incumbent on Keld to present in purely technical
>terms why he feels it won't work.

This is a part of a longer discussion, originating with an article
by Erik v.d. Poel. Please refer to the row of articles, if you need
more information. In short, Doug has said that the problem that Erik
raised was not a problem, and I tend to believe Doug.

>Alleging that someone else said they thought there was a problem isn't
>nearly the same as stating an argument on technical grounds in "hard
>facts".  I don't think it is a problem for any of the above (or in
>support of the JIS C6220 and C6226 standards for Kanji and Kana for
>that matter).

Is your opinion based on similar arguments as Doug's?
Or what is it based on? I think that solving Erik's (and SC2's)
problem with some interpretation wordings would be a good result
of this news discussion.

Keld Simonsen