From: Joan Aliprand [jaliprand@pobox.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 15:16
To: edwin.Hart@jhuapl.edu
Cc: joan_Aliprand@notes.rlg.org
Subject: Please disregard 5/3 msg. "Next go-round of 15897"
<15897mod0503.doc>

Dear Ed:

Please disregard the message I sent late last night (May 3) with the 
subject line "Next go-round of 15897" because I merged in more changes from 
me as well as commenting on your changes, and that is a sure way to 
confusion. So let me start over again.

I was unable to use 15897mod 0429-efh.doc because I am using MS Word 97 
SR-2 and though it shows deleted text in color, it doesn't show it as 
struck through and both deleted and inserted text are in the same color.

So I had to recreate the changes you made in my Word 97 file. Here it is, 
dated 0503 because that is the day you sent the file with the changes. It 
should be essentially the same as 15897mod 0429-efh.doc, except for 
editorial comments from me to you (in purple) and perhaps minor punctuation 
changes that I may have missed.

Here are the changes that should appear in this file/comments from me. (I 
have retained the numbering from "Next go-round of 15897" in case you see 
that first.)

1. Re your addition to comment under scope: I wonder if it is advisable to 
encourage Keld to use ANYTHING from the failed DTR 14652. He might take it 
as evidence that it is a worthy document (disregarding Sandra's pages and 
pages of criticism).

4. I took your advice about dropping the "Location" subclause. I will add a 
sentence to the preceding clause on Format to direct the reader to Clause 
4.3. Here is the wording I plan to add: "Directions for access to the 
International Register on the Internet are given in Clause 4.3."

5. Agree with your clean-up of FCD text to eliminate irrelevant pieces 
(e.g., "coded character set"). We should do this throughout.

6. In Clause 5. I agree with your relocation of the text that I thought 
belonged in procedures. It's definitely the right place.

7. In 5.2, item b: Should "specification" be singular or plural? (I used 
"definitions" to preserve more of Keld's original text, and because of 
"cultural specifications" in the same clause, but don't feel strongly that 
we should keep it the way I had it.)

8. In the #.2.2 of the Clause on the JAC, I don't understand why Windows XP 
shows "subcommittee" both deleted and inserted. I propose to accept 
"subcommittee" and add "responsible for maintaining this standard" after it 
(just to be clear).

9. In the list of JAC responsibilities: Thanks for spotting the upper-case 
"To".

10. In Clause 6, paragraph on Type 5 and 6, I didn't understand the changes 
you made. In this standard, FDCC-sets are related to DTR 14652, so we 
should not be mentioning them. (You have "FDCC" only.)

11. I removed the page break between paragraph 3. and 4. and included an 
annotation to let you know that the page break was not intended.

12. In the list of tasks of the registration authority, I would like 
clauses b and c to be left inline, so it's easier for people to read what 
we disagree with. Our change is a major difference and I know Keld will 
fight us tooth and nail because it takes away his power. If Word doesn't 
allow you to keep deleted text inline, perhaps you could add it back in and 
then strike it through. (It really is important to show Keld's text, so 
readers can contrast it with what the JTC1 Directives say.)  See also an 
editorial annotation in purple in the text.

16. Thanks for the very conciliatory wording in the question in 7.2

18. There was a repetition of the text about the tasks of the RA. I took it 
out and included a purple editorial note to let you know what was going on.

What I will do next is send you a revision of this file, with additional 
changes from me. I will also send a list of the changes that I made, so you 
don't have to hunt around in the Word document.

Because of the discrepancy between our versions of Word, can I ask you to 
send me instructions (in the manner of NSB review comments) describing the 
changes you want. I will make them to my copy of the file and send a copy 
of the updated file back to you. Word revision marking appears to be 
upwardly compatible, but not downwardly.

When we feel that the document is in good shape, I will turn it over to you 
for the formatting changes that are needed. If you come across things that 
need to be changed, I would prefer it if you sent me just the piece that 
you propose to change (in the manner of the NSB review comments). Once 
everyone is in agreement (you and me for sure; Ken, Uma and Sandra if they 
are going to continue to be involved after their initial pass), you make 
the change to the master document. It's a bit more work for you, but it 
keeps things clean.

How does this plan sound to you?

-- Joan