From:	Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200206120738.JAA24423@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject:	Re: v2.03 update 2
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:38:52 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To:	<10206111625.AA14413@clio.rice.edu> from "Charles Sandmann" at Jun 11, 2002 11:25:33 AM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Normally I would agree, but in this case the original text was:
> 
> djdev203 Development Kit and Runtime (6/2002 Refresh)

We can't have this.

> 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:

Yes. Does the standard really say that year-month dates (without days)
should be written "YYYY-MM"?

How about using "2002-06-XX" (XX literal) to show that the exact day
is unknown. Or will this cuase confusion as well?

> 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).

This would be ok too. Most DJGPP things are in English anyway. We
could worry about this after localisation has been implemented...


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -