In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael
McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
OK, I disappeared for a while there, but is it fair to summarize this thread
by saying that the two field names we have the best evidence for in terms of
usage on the actual web are 'date-published' and 'date-accessed
2007/2/21, Tim White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Jeremy said:
>Though not really arguing
>against Tim's reasons, there are cases in which citations can have a
>date published and a date visited or accessed.
Most definitely. I did not mean to discount the value of date-accessed.
>
>That said, should t
Jeremy said:
>Though not really arguing
>against Tim's reasons, there are cases in which citations can have a
>date published and a date visited or accessed.
Most definitely. I did not mean to discount the value of date-accessed.
>
>That said, should there also be a date-accessed or date-vi
On 2/21/07, Jeremy Boggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That said, should there also be a date-accessed or date-visited value
for hCite?
--- the SHOULD is defined by real-world examples. We shouldn't ask if
we SHOULD add a feature, we should see if that feature already is
being published in the wil
On Feb 20, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Tim White wrote:
I vote for leaving it date-published. It really doesn't matter when
consumers get their hands on a published piece,
all that matters is when it is (claimed to be) published.
I also vote for leaving it date-published. Though not really arguing
a
Mike said:
>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 pre
On 2/20/07, Michael McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A quick scan through the markup examples we have confirms my
impression that most examples from the web are equally vague about
what the dates they show mean. Our condensed summaries on -examples
often describe them as date-published, but i
On 2/20/07, Brian Suda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/20/07, Michael McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone against changing 'date-published' to 'date'?
--- the questions is what is the semantics of 'date'? if you create
'date' and use it the date published/updated/copyrighted/etc the
On 2/20/07, Michael McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is anyone against changing 'date-published' to 'date'?
--- the questions is what is the semantics of 'date'? if you create
'date' and use it the date published/updated/copyrighted/etc then
those all have different semantics.
-brian
--
b
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"
10 matches
Mail list logo
