13.12.2005, 22:00:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:54:48 +0100 Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | Do you _really_ think this make a GLEP necessary?
> Yes. Otherwise, the next person who comes along and writes a GLEP that > does something to do with dates will have to rationalise the whole date > format decision all over again. > You're assuming that "GLEP == lots of work". This is the case for some > things, but it isn't true in all situations. Look at 43 for an example. Pardon my ignorance, but how's a GLEP amending a GLEP (amending a GLEP ...) less confusing than just changing the text of the original GLEP... Huh, goes beyond me... -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;)
pgp6OIKAOoK3K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
