Ian McNicoll wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Whilst I agree that in most circumstances it would be of no interest > to authors, there may be circumstances where it is important to know > the exact RM version and revision, perhaps for safety-critical > archetypes, which the 'consumers' wish to check meticulously. I see no > harm in documenting the full RM version when an archetype is > published, even if in the vast majority of cases it is of no > importance. > > *but which RM version? There will usually be more than one that the archetype is compatible with, and the list keeps changing, so it doesn't make sense to put that information in the archetype itself.
- thomas *
