Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:43:13 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=windows-1252 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 26/03/2015 09:34, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
> Am Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:05:16 +0000 schrieb Joseph Wright:
>
>
>> I note that both of the files with versions also have dates. I wonder if
>> these might be as (or more) useful to most end users than MD5 sums.
>> After all, a version/date combination is what we use for LaTeX packages,
>> etc.
>
>
> I'm not sure that I grasped the point of the discussion, but anyway:
:
> Most people never will never look at the file but take whatever
> their texsystems gives them. So neither md5 sums nor dates nor
> versions matters for them.
Indeed :-)
> But for the people who will look at the file for some reason every
> additional information about source, date, version can be useful. I
> always prefer verbose descriptions, even if they contain redundant
> informations.
Reasonable point. I will probably adjust again before we send the code
to CTAN to parse the file date/time as well as file version. That way
we'll be including everything the Unicode Consortium give us.
--
Joseph Wright
|
|
|