From jkr@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk  Tue May  1 12:14:55 2001
Received: from nameserv.rl.ac.uk (nameserv.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.129])
	by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA53002
	for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>; Tue, 1 May 2001 12:14:55 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from jkr@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk)
Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk [130.246.8.20])
	by nameserv.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA04151
	for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>; Tue, 1 May 2001 11:15:10 +0100
Received: (from jkr@localhost)
	by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA00584
	for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 1 May 2001 11:17:16 +0100 (BST)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 11:17:16 +0100 (BST)
From: John Reid <jkr@rl.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <200105011017.LAA00584@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk>
To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2055) Revised draft response for interp. 31
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear WG5,
	 I should have explained that I am primarily interested in
comments on the technical quality of my two draft answers. I want J3 to
have good drafts to consider at their meeting. Of course, you are
welcome to express your opinion on their relative merits and this may
influence J3's choice, but please also consider the quality of the
responses and the correctness of the edits. And I prefer to 
receive technical comments privately. 

Thanks,

John.