[Message Prev][Message
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message
Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re: Changes to Protocol Docs - a Summary
- Subject: RE: Re: Changes to Protocol Docs - a Summary
- From: "Ian Lowe" <ian.lowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:16:44 +0100
Yeah - I don't see the need to enforce a specific format, beyond
specifying what it can contain: numbers and decimal points only, no
leading "v" or "ver" etc.
Ian.
-----Original Message-----
From: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Paul Robinson
Sent: 26 September 2005 11:54
To: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ukha_xpl] Re: Changes to Protocol Docs - a Summary
> If we're going to specify the format of the version number, can I make
> an appeal for a 3 part numerals only version e.g 4.12.1543 - then it
> would match the version numbering system in the Windows Installer that
> most of us use to package our apps.
Is it necessary to tie developers to a particular format? Saying that it
shouldn't be prefixed by "version" or "v" etc is quite
different from
specifying exactly how they should be formatted.
Paul
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
xPL Links: http://www.xplproject.org.uk http://www.xplhal.com
http://www.xpl.myby.co.uk
To Post a Message: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx
To Subscribe: ukha_xpl-subscribe@xxxxxxx
To Unsubscribe: ukha_xpl-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
xPL Main Index |
xPL Thread Index |
xPL Home |
Archives Home
|