Maybe just change the copyright notice from "-2001" to "-2002"? <G>
While I generally agree the word "last" can sometimes imply a finality, in this particular context this is a weak implication. OTOH, the word "latest" has the implication of something recent, whereas I understand that gpc-2.0 is actually very outdated, so using the word "latest" would encourage people to think of using gpc-2.0, contrary to the what that sentence is actually trying to say.
Well, the imminent (?) release of gpc-2.1 should change any perception that this project may be dead, and hopefully the web site update at that time will address your concerns.
Joe.
-----Original Message----- From: strobe anarkhos [SMTP:anarkhos@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:31 AM To: gpc@gnu.de Subject: GNU Pascal web site
Is it just be or does the web site look dead. It's almost begging for a huge declaration "THIS PROJECT ISN'T DEAD!!"
I don't think the language used helps much. For example does the statement "We already can recommend using it instead of gpc-2.0, the last official release." imply 2.0 is the last official release, or the latest official release?
It also makes you go through several web pages if you want to get a FAQ or status report. The GNUStep web site is a lot better.
Anyway, I'm not complaining, just an observation |-\