discuss: Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
Subject:
Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
From:
"Greg Ferguson" ####@####.####
Date:
25 Apr 2002 15:40:53 -0000
Message-Id: <10204251137.ZM7517@hoop.timonium.sgi.com>
On Apr 25, 11:26am, David Merrill wrote:
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 11:18:56AM -0400, Greg Ferguson wrote:
>...
> > > > 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.
Agreed.
If no one has any objections, I can make the change to the various
materials (LDP Author Guide, authoring templates).
--
Ferg
