On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:44:20 +0200 (CEST) Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2004, Gabor Hojtsy wrote: > > > >>Two notes/questions: > > >> > > >> - have you tested that the upgraded stuff works? > > > > > > yep, I've tried to build some languages firstly. > > > and take a look at the diff - it's obviuos, that this specific file can't break > > > anything. > > > > Aham... > > > > >> - why do you modify the sheets? we used to use the original > > >> sheets with our customizations, since people can use their > > >> local sheet copies as well > > > > > > I tried to not touch the ones, which were customized. > > > sorry if I did it, just tell me and I restore old files (or I can port > > > customizations to the new version, if you prefer). > > > > I think you misunderstood me. I said that we used to have an *untouched* > > DSSSL sheet distribution in our module, and we have only modified it's > > working with our customizations (our own DSSSL addon sheets). As far as > > I have seen you have done some modifications to the distributed files > > themselfs. I don't understand, why those modifications were needed, so > > probably this is why I don't understand. This kind of modification is > > not future compatible, since we might need to upgrade sometime, and will > > not be able to stop that there were differences from the original DSSSL > > sheet distribution. > > AFAIK upgrading to a newer version of the DSSSL sheets was all what he > did. Yep. You can grab them from SF.net and compare - it's just a new version, without any modifications. --- WBR, Antony Dovgal aka tony2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
