From Bruce D'Arcus on the wiki:
"I've mentioned more than once that "date-published" is misleadingly specific; too much for real world citations. Consider that many books are published in the year preceding their copyright date, which is in fact the date used for citation. I'd prefer just "date" and "date-accessed" as a first cut. --Bruce 3 Feb 2007" I agree - this maps well to current practice in existing formats I know of - they tend to not specify the type of date, instead using fields like "month" and "year". Is anyone against changing 'date-published' to 'date'? -mike -- Michael McCracken UCSD CSE PhD Candidate research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/ misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/ _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
