Re: Go forward with 2.3.0rc1 despite potential data loss from changes to dashes?

2017-10-28 Thread Scott Kostyshak
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:09:32AM +, Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2017-10-27, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --] > > > Dear all, > > > Because of the dashes and ZWSP situation, we do not produce an > > equivalent document in some cases (I'm still curious for a

Re: Go forward with 2.3.0rc1 despite potential data loss from changes to dashes?

2017-10-28 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:41:24PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > Dear all, > > Because of the dashes and ZWSP situation, we do not produce an > equivalent document in some cases (I'm still curious for a definition of > what an "equivalent" document specifically means). For more information, >

Re: Go forward with 2.3.0rc1 despite potential data loss from changes to dashes?

2017-10-28 Thread Guenter Milde
On 2017-10-27, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --] > Dear all, > Because of the dashes and ZWSP situation, we do not produce an > equivalent document in some cases (I'm still curious for a definition of > what an "equivalent" document specifically means). I would

Go forward with 2.3.0rc1 despite potential data loss from changes to dashes?

2017-10-27 Thread Scott Kostyshak
Dear all, Because of the dashes and ZWSP situation, we do not produce an equivalent document in some cases (I'm still curious for a definition of what an "equivalent" document specifically means). For more information, see: