Lines: 23
References: <861tkcpwx6.fsf@frenzy.freefriends.org>
            <55133879.40807@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <5513AFAC.3020609@morningstar2.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.41de
Message-ID:  <175pvac54cm31$.dlg@nililand.de>
Date:         Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:34:24 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Ulrike Fischer <news3@NILILAND.DE>
Subject: Re: latex and unicode-letters
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

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. 

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. 

-- 
Ulrike Fischer 
http://www.troubleshooting-tex.de/