Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2002/06/11/12:47:59
> > 2002-06 (ISO) for the date. Since no one commented on it in refresh 1
> > whoever feels the most strongly about it (short of an overwhelming vote)
> > wins. (Does anyone/anything look at the .ver file?)
>
> ISO format (2002-06) is language neutral, while "June 2002" is
> definitely English. ISO format sorts naturally, and is an
> approved standard. My feeling is why reinvent wheels. The
> subject is symptomatic of adherence to standards IMHO, rather that
> earthshaking in itself.
Normally I would agree, but in this case the original text was:
djdev203 Development Kit and Runtime (6/2002 Refresh)
And it's not obvious that's a date. Changing this to:
djdev203 Development Kit and Runtime (2002-06 Refresh)
Makes it just as unclear that it's a date (God forbid that someone
interpret that as the 6th update of 2002). While the suggestion:
djdev203 Development Kit and Runtime (June 2002 Refresh)
While this is English centric it is more unambiguously a date; the
rest of the text is English so it doesn't really matter. After
looking at all three, reading the comments others made - it seems
to me the last one is the best choice (and what's currently in
the refresh zips).
- Raw text -