From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10206111625.AA14413@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: v2.03 update 2
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:25:33 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To:	<3D05A9F9.D45EB608@yahoo.com> from "CBFalconer" at Jun 11, 2002 03:42:49 AM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
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

> > 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 -