> But it shows, that others are also working on this issue.
>
> Maybe we should really try to agree on a common solution for this?

I agree with Thomas. I'm sure that with some cooperation a nice
solution can be reached.

> Exactly that's the the wrong way. If the change in May 2000 was only a
typo,
> you might get a big hole if you check only the en-changes from that date
till
> now.

Indeed, that's the main reason for all this. A date will not no, you need to
manually
keep track of en-revision.

> You're right, the "meta information" is not necessary (I've just copied
> it from nl/language/basic-syntax.xml :)

Thanks for the honour, but I think my initial proposal is a bit cumbersome:
there is in fact no need to include the english filename...

Is
<!-- EN-Revision: 1.1 -->
a good idea? It is (on purpose) very similar to:
<!-- $Revision: 1.1 $ -->

> Maybe we can agree upon a
> common style (esp. when we should have common script)?

+1




Jeroen

Reply via email to