On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:21:15PM +0100, Axel Wernicke wrote:
> >>By the way, it's valid not to have a revremark element.
> >Oh, that would be nice. Are you sure? I tested it and it gave me an
> >error, but could have been my fault. Haven't investigated more ...
>
> well, double checked that and - it seems indeed to be valid
> --> revision ::= (revnumber,date, (author|authorinitials)*, (revremark|revdescription)?)
Cool, so we can leave revremark out :)
> >Btw. why do you want to provide language specific revision logs?
> Lets say we have a file containing en and a fr translation. Content for booth is ages old.
> Then somebody gratefully updates the en part and whops, the whole thing gets a new recent and
> shiny cvs revision. Also for the fr part which was not touched for ages.
> Anyway to have some sort of revision and date is better than nothing. So lets go for it.
Hm, you've definitly a point here. It would be missleading than, if we
don't have them language dependant. So, I think we have to provide the
date and authorinitials manually as well as language dependant:
<revhistory>
<revision>
<revnumber>$Revision$</revnumber>
<date lang="de">2005-01-17</date>
<date lang="en">2006-05-19</date>
<authorinitials lang="de">romanofski</authorinitials>
<authorinitials lang="en">lexa</authorinitials>
</revision>
</revhistory>
How about this idea?
Greetings,
--
Roman Joost
www: http://www.romanofski.de
email: romanofski@xxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpSMVw6wG84Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
