From: Martin Stromberg 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Precedence: bulk > 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