now I dare do some more work on the Norwegian files. I have been puting it up for some time because of the changes and the need to do things over - now I hope that things will work steadily.
(Sorry I have to wait a little longer, because of other pressing work, but I look forward to seet myself down to re-enter hundreds of signs, and quite a few that I never entered before too).
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:02:37 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Put the blame on me ;-)
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 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.