LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:52:21 -0600
Reply-To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]> (message from David Carlisle on Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:45:31 +0000)
Content-Type:
text/plain
From:
Karl Berry <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)
Sigh.  Again: my point is that one way is verifiable and debuggable, the
other is not.  If all that's stated is "7.0.0", and a user's result is
different, there is no way for the user to know if it's because Unicode
released two different files under that version number, there was an
error in the download, something changed or went wrong in the LaTeX
processing code, or ... who knows what.

With a factual, verifiable, piece of information about the input files
used, any problem can be easily diagnosed, instead of having to be
guessed at.

(Not that it's likely to matter in practice, I grant you.)

k

ATOM RSS1 RSS2