Tim provided digital primary texts of two documents: the original Proposal (dated April 30, 1983) and an Addendum to that proposal (dated July 15, 1983). The digital files consist only of the "guts" of the text documents. The hard-copy version of the Proposal, viewed in the Canada Council file, also sported a title page. The text of this title page is reproduced at the beginning of the Proposal available on this wiki, although its formatting isn't identical to the look and layout of the (photocopied) original. The hard copy Proposal was cerlox-bound.

A hard-copy version of the Addendum wasn't found in the Canada Council files. Given that both documents were submitted to the Department of Communications (the copy to the Canada Council was presumably provided for information or background), it's possible that the Canada Council never saw the Addendum. It's probable that a title page may have graced the Addendum as well, though we have yet to see it.

Both documents, in their original form, include page numbers at the top of each page and the date at the bottom of each page. On this wiki, page breaks are indicated by a page number, enclosed in brackets, italicized. The date has been reproduced at the beginning and end of the document, but not on "every page."

The original uses a mono-spaced font, with two spaces between each sentence, and indents its paragraphs. Where the original used underlining for emphasis, such text is rendered in italics on this wiki. The original digital files parsed underlining by inserting an underscore and hash-mark before each underlined letter, like _#s_#o. This is very hard to read, and is likely the result of today's equipment interpreting code designed for other word-processing (or other) softwares. The digital files also seem to use hard line-breaks and manually-inserted blank lines to achieve the margins and double-spaced presentation in the hard copy. Given that any line that includes an emphasized word or phrase seems to overrun the margin, this appearance may also be related to code-compatibility.

Single quotes are angled (i.e., would be "curly" quotes, not primes) in the original; perhaps the only single open-quote is with the word 'Visiterm' on page 29 of the Proposal. The digital file show that open-quote angled (`Visiterm'), but then the close quote in the digital file is vertical (as are all apostrophes, for example).

In a number of cases, the wiki isn't exactly faithful to the hard copy's layout, in part due to limitations of the wiki formatting. We could get fussier about this if we choose. This includes vertical alignment of certain elements and block quotes.

Whatever printer was used to output the original report as submitted to the Canada Council may have been in need of tuning: the photocopy shows that many ascenders and descenders are faint or even missing (so lowercase b, p, h, n, g are not always distinct). Running OCR on this hard copy would be messy; Tim's files of course bring us instantly to the correct (well, intelligible) text, but it does make for a different experience reading the text on the wiki versus the copied hard copy.

Search this wiki: