Code

Changes between Version 239 and Version 240 of DevelopersForHire


Ignore:
Timestamp:
09/05/07 08:52:36 (7 years ago)
Author:
erob@…
Comment:

fixed some eye-popping typos ;)

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • DevelopersForHire

    v239 v240  
    33''I think it does make sense to put a date. Maybe we could sort this list in alphabetical order, too ?'' -- Etienne Robillard 
    44 
    5 '' Yes I too agree with Etienne, better to add the names in in alphabetical order. But last updated won't highlight weather the developer is available or not. Better if we can use validity date for the details posted by the Develper. The developer should specify the validity date of the posting, i.e. when he wish to re-update the posting. This will make it mandatory for a Developer to update the validity before it expires and will help the company to know weather the developer is available or not.  
     5'' Yes I too agree with Etienne, better to add the names in in alphabetical order. But last updated won't highlight whether the developer is available or not. Better if we can use validity date for the details posted by the Develper. The developer should specify the validity date of the posting, i.e. when he wish to re-update the posting. This will make it mandatory for a Developer to update the validity before it expires and will help the company to know whether the developer is available or not.  
    66 
    77''I suggest it can be in the following format:''   
    88 
    9 ||'''Developer Name''' (Arranged in alphabetical order)||'''Valid Uptill'''(Should be updated by Developer on expiry)||   
     9||'''Developer Name'''  (Arranged in alphabetical order)||'''Valid Until''' (Should be updated by Developer on expiry)||   
    1010 
    1111i.e.  
    1212= Developers for hire = 
    13 ||'''Developer Name''' ||'''Valid Uptill''' ||   
     13||'''Developer Name''' ||'''Valid Until''' ||   
    1414 
    1515|| A...|| ||