User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
            Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <861tkcpwx6.fsf@frenzy.freefriends.org>           
            <55133879.40807@morningstar2.co.uk>           
            <5513AFAC.3020609@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <175pvac54cm31$.dlg@nililand.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <5513D4B1.5070906@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:43:13 +0000
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: latex and unicode-letters
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <175pvac54cm31$.dlg@nililand.de>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

On 26/03/2015 09:34, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
> 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. 

Indeed :-)

> 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. 

Reasonable point. I will probably adjust again before we send the code
to CTAN to parse the file date/time as well as file version. That way
we'll be including everything the Unicode Consortium give us.
--
Joseph Wright