Kay C:
I figured that was probably an issue, but didn't take the time to
explore and think it through.
Sorry,
Joe Wilkins
On May 9, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Kay C Lan wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Joe Lewis Wilkins <[email protected]>
wrote:
Wouldn't it make even more sense to have a prominent link on the New
RevOnLine to the Old RevOnLine? And vice versa? But that's too
obvious!
Ah I don't think it's that easy.
New RevOnline doesn't run in Rev 3.0 or earlier, so anyone going to
RevOnline in Rev 2.6.1 will get Old RevOnline. Having a link to New
RevOnline is pointless if they don't have Rev 3.5.
The same could be said for those on Rev 3.5 who don't have an older
copy,
but for those who do have old copies of Rev, whilst a link in New
RevOnline
to Old RevOnline might be workable I don't see how this is going to
prevent
wasted time looking for stacks in the wrong RevOnline if the creator
doesn't
announce which particular RevOnline they've uploaded to.
To me it's like stating "I've made an OS X app" vs "I've made a
Leopard
app". One will have a bunch of Jaguar and Tiger users wasting time
trying to
figure out why your app doesn't work. Reminds me of recent thread
about
speaking accurately but still being ambiguous.
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
