-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
Henry S. Thompson writes:
> Communications failure somewhere?
No. We have communicated about this issue ad nauseum, and it comes
down to a conflict over quality control systems.
My bad, sorry not to have checked the archives (I did look, but not
hard enough, obviously). Might be worth a _very_ brief note on the
xemacs list in reply to the OP acking their contribution and
summarizing the above, to forestall other readers there jumping to the
same conclusion I did.
Cheers,
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht(a)inf.ed.ac.uk
URL:
http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFskn/kjnJixAXWBoRAj17AJ4lnxdKUuqgPPGolj9r73WFFshSzACffsUk
68Mf036lFKVNZVjVSyFt0dY=
=AGgM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta