discuss: Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
Subject:
Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
From:
David Merrill ####@####.####
Date:
25 Apr 2002 15:34:44 -0000
Message-Id: <20020425162631.GA3303@lupercalia.net>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 11:18:56AM -0400, Greg Ferguson wrote:
> 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).
Fine. I'll rename my field something else to remove any confusion.
> > > 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.
Gotcha, I understand. What I disagree with is advocating that it
continue to be used this way. Documenting that it has been used this
way, and why, is fine with me, but not advocating it.
--
David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project ####@####.####
Lead Developer http://www.tldp.org
To the cross roads I must go
To find a world unseen
Fear and wonder will I know,
And be a bridge between
-- To the Crossroads, Starhawk
