discuss: Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
Subject:
Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
From:
"Greg Ferguson" ####@####.####
Date:
25 Apr 2002 15:22:48 -0000
Message-Id: <10204251118.ZM7468@hoop.timonium.sgi.com>
On Apr 25, 10:58am, David Merrill wrote:
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:20:50AM -0400, Greg Ferguson wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 12:04pm, ####@####.#### wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > Is a <pubdate> a <date> that is in ISO "YYYY-MM-DD" format.
> > >
> > > Found no explicit statement.
> > > But in the exmaple at the end of
> > >
> > > http://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/article.html
> > >
> > > a <pubdate> is plain 4-digit year,
> > > and <date> is something strange.
>
> I see the difference in <date> vs <pubdate> that the <date> is when it
> was modified (<revision><date>, anyway), and <pubdate> is when it was
> published. They are *not* the same thing.
>
> In the LDP Database (now Lampadas), I record in pub_date the day *we*
> published it, regardless of what the document says. Probably I should
> have two pub dates, one what the doc says, one when we published. (And
> Ferg, FYI, I use the date of the announcing email as the official date
> of publication, even if that should occasionally be not exactly
> correct).
Too confusing for the reader. I think we should keep the revision date
and the <pubdate> equal. Either that, or denote the <pubdate> with
some sort of label to indicate what it is/means (via stylesheets).
> > Again, something the LDP recommends. This is actually
> > a hold-over from the linuxdoc DTD <date> element, in which
> > it was recommended to use "version, date":
> >
> > v1.0, 2000-04-10
> >
> > (I need to update the LDP Author Guide on this one.)
>
> Oh goodness. I really disagree with this. There is absolutely no
> reason to have the version inside the <pubdate>, since there is
> already a separate version field. TDG says:
>
> "The PubDate is the date of publication of a document".
>
> The version does not belong in it IMNSHO.
I will re-state: "[it's] a hold-over from the linuxdoc DTD".
I'm not adverse to making a change. linuxdoc has no concept
of a <revision> tag, hence the revision was stuffed into the
<date> tag. That's the history. Which carried over into the
use of the docbook <pubdate> element.
--
Ferg
