LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:43:13 +0000
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (29 lines)
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2