Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance

[Philip Webb]

980227 Scott McGee wrote: 
> it is important to have Y2K mentioned in this release.
> With growing concern regarding Y2K, many organizations may decide
> to upgrade Lynx if they can easily determine it is compliant,
> but may just drop it if not.

this seems the likely scenario to which we should address 2-8 documentation.

> an easily found (near the top of the document) reference in the main readme
> would suffice for most such.  On the other hand, there may be those
> who will mearly look at the latest release source files for any indication
> of Y2K compliance, and if they can see it from file name,
> may be more likely to upgrade.

this also seems very likely for harrassed sysadmins out there.

so Y2K should be mentioned twice (it won't hurt):
once in the README file for those who start there,
but also in a file called Y2K or YEAR2000 or something else obvious,
for those who just flip thro' the directory listing;
the same text will suffice in both places.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto