discuss: Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
Subject:
Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
25 Apr 2002 20:55:14 -0000
Message-Id: <20020425133048.C580@lafn.org>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 11:37:01AM -0400, Greg Ferguson wrote:
> 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).
I object. I think that the reader is only concerned with the dates of
the most recent major and minor revisions. But you are not proposing
using the date of the major revision. It's hard to define what
constitutes a major revision, but after a major revision, a doc should be
just like it was a newly written doc and (hopefully) fully
up-to-date.
Some problems include the fact that there are also intermediate level
revisions, and some docs that are not up-to-date when they are first
written. In view of these complexities, I think that having just one
date, the revision date, is all we need for now.
The placing of the version on the same line as the date is simple and
avoids creating an additional tag in linuxdoc. Thus until we have such
a tag for linuxdoc, I propose keeping it as is. In fact, I'm not
convinced that linuxdoc needs such a tag, unless it's needed for
conversions to docbook.
As far as numeric dates go, I don't like them as well as the ones that
spell out the month since then there is no confusion of getting the
month number mixed up with the day number.
David Lawyer
