 |
 |
Hi Alan, Thanks for you comments. On 9/14/11 9:32 AM, Alan Post wrote: > I have struggled just to keep up with the changes to SWIS and > ISWA--I've had to convert my database three or four times, which > sometimes takes me many months to get around to--during which I > don't use SignWriting. :-( Yes, I understand this very well. Every time I put out a new standard, I make additional busy work for myself and others. Back in 2008, I was hoping that I had a stable standard, but every time that I tried to use the standard, I always found a serious flaw that could not be overlooked. I would find that my code libraries were becoming overly complicated and slow. The only way to address the various flaws was with a new encoding. > I *love* SWIS2. I am producing documents with it that are so, so > beautiful compared to SWIS. I don't wish to complain about where > we are, but to articulate just how expensive changes are, to me. > Even seemingly minor issues can be major headaches for me--I would > much rather be in the business of *using* SignWriting! Agreed! I love SWIS 2 as well. The code is simple and clean. It does what I want it to do. I have plans to expand the code and there are no more serious flaws that will get in the way. The ISWA 2010 has been stable since it's release in 2010 and the Unicode proposal will hopefully be approved next year. There will not be any more changes to the encoding so you will not need to convert your database again. Any writing you do today will still be valid years from now. Fortunately, the question of writing style is outside of the encoding. Regards, -Steve