discuss: Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
Subject:
Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
From:
"Greg Ferguson" ####@####.####
Date:
25 Apr 2002 21:08:57 -0000
Message-Id: <10204251706.ZM8188@hoop.timonium.sgi.com>
On Apr 25, 1:30pm, David Lawyer wrote:
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Templates in Writer
> 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.
I believe, if pubdate is used, it should be identical to the *current*
revision date. Major/minor rev has nothing to do with it.
As a user I want to know "what's the date of this revision?".
<pubdate> currently shows up in the document before the
revision history, so it's the first date the user sees. If it
doesn't coincide with the current revision I find that confusing.
Especially true since there is no label on the pubdate element.
> 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.
Ok, I'm inclined to agree. We wouldn't recommend using pubdate since
the <revhistory> is a better mechanism. But if it is used, I would
add that it should be equal to the current revision date (to avoid
confusion on the part of the user reading the document).
The other alternative would be to make a stylesheet change (apply
a label to the pubdate, something of that nature).
--
Ferg
