hi. Keep in mind folks, FS often produces versions of JAWS for internal uses, I.e. Alpha and beta builds, and they usually have sequential numbers. so that would explain the strange numbering system. We don't see all the builds that are made, so when a public version comes out, it could be a much higher number than the previous one.
I hope that explains it? At 03:31 PM 5/12/2008, you wrote:
I don't think it's the first time a JAWS update has come out with a nonsequential number. I also wish FS would simplify the numbering because we frequently need to refer to update, and not just version, numbers. I usually take the extra step of checking the "About" section in JAWS help. It isn't as if there have been 522 separate updates of version 9.----- Original Message ----- From: MarkFIs it just me and all the people I have talked to. numerically speaking jaws 9.00.522 should be the latest update NOT 9.00.2152This is not the way versions numbers should be labeled .2 comes before .5. Has anyone else thought this strange? MarkThe beginning of strife is [like] letting out water, So abandon the quarrel before it breaks out.__________ NOD32 3093 (20080512) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. <http://www.eset.com>http://www.eset.com
-- JFW related links: JFW homepage: http://www.freedomscientific.com/ Scripting mailing list: http://lists.the-jdh.com/listinfo.cgi/scriptography-the-jdh.com JFW List instructions: To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
