No major reason--it does distinguish between the (obvious to us) fact that TDK != JDK. Also, it warns JDK 1.1 and lesser users not to download something that they can't use. Perhaps we should mention it elsewhere instead, or additionally? Any suggestions as to where? Fedor Karpelevitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is definitely a legal statement, but why mention JDK here if we do not > mention it anywhere else... > > On Wednesday 16 May 2001 01:39, you wrote: > > dlr 01/05/16 01:39:08 > > > > Modified: xdocs index.xml > > Log: > > Added note about JDK version suggested by Kurt Schrader > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > Revision Changes Path > > 1.16 +2 -1 jakarta-turbine/xdocs/index.xml > > > > Index: index.xml > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-turbine/xdocs/index.xml,v > > retrieving revision 1.15 > > retrieving revision 1.16 > > diff -u -r1.15 -r1.16 > > --- index.xml 2001/05/13 04:29:13 1.15 > > +++ index.xml 2001/05/16 08:39:05 1.16 > > @@ -158,7 +158,8 @@ > > <section name="Where is the latest TDK?"> > > <p> > > TDK 1.1 versions are available <a > > -href="http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/tdk/";>Here</a>. > > +href="http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/tdk/";>here</a> (JDK 1.2 or > > +higher required). > > </p> > > </section> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
