On 10/6/06, Brian Suda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/6/06, Joe Andrieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm assuming that means it isn't included in what you've done so far. --- correct. From the examples online[1] most (if any) did not have a dateAccessed. [well one did CiteProc_XHTML_Output[2], which doesn't fall into the 80/20]. I'm not against exploring dateAccessed, there might be ways to extract an access date without actually declaring it explicitly.
Run this search on Google: site:wikipedia.org "accessed on" It's not very precise (it probably misses some stuff), but I get over 6,800 hits; from one site! Fair to say it's pretty "real world."
If you are looking for the DATETIME that you "viewed" the article, then that could be added by the transforming application (this might be a bad idea?) and/or use the timestamp that is sent in HTTP Headers (Last-Modified date - again, maybe a bad idea?)
All an access date does it authenticate a URL; it says "the URL was valid on this date." URLs change, so citations REQUIRE access dates. I have never seen an exception to this rule. Whether we call it "dtvalid" or "dtaccessed" doesn't matter that much. BTW, worth looking at Zotero, which has just gone live: <http://zotero.org> They'll be supporting hCite once it's done. Bruce _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
