Re: date formats

[Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc@cu-portland.edu>]

> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:31:01PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:21:26AM +0800, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> > > > A recommendation is outlined below; I've extended this as to what
> > > > I think would comprise a good/valid MINIMUM set of elements for
> > > > a header area for LDP documents:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Couple of things I'd like to harp on are below.
> > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > if linuxdoc:
> > > > 
> > > >    <title>title of HOWTO, include "HOWTO" or "mini HOWTO"</title>
> 
> In linuxdoc there should be no optional end tag </title> to reduce
> keystrokes.


So, putting this into a section that authors can copy and paste is too
much typing, huh?  Am I the only one who see's this as silly?  


> > > <title>Title of HOWTO, include "HOWTO"</title>
> > 
> > I agree. Did we ever come to a really final decision on whether or not
> > mini is going away? I'm *really*, ***REALLY*** not trying to restart a
> > flamefest here; I don't remember. I'll abide by the majority opinion
> > once I know what the hell it is. :-)
> > 
> > > >    <revhistory>
> > > >      <revision>
> > > >        <revnumber>v2.0</revnumber>
> > > >        <date>DD MMM YYYY</date>
> > > >      </revision>
> 
> Talking about the revision number not inside a <revhistory>
> environment: 
> 
> What will this be for linuxdoc that has no <revision> tag AFAIK?
> 
> I suppose it could be 
> <date>v2.0, YYYY MM DD
> 
> Then it will need to be automatically conveted to docbook which will
> take a little programming work.
> Or we could add a <rev> tag to linuxdoc.  Or it might be best to put
> both revision and date after the <date> tag in docbook so as to keep
> it the same as linuxdoc.


This doesn't really matter much, the conversions from LinuxDoc to
DocBook is just a starting point for authors.  When they go to use
DocBook, they should have read the relavent sections of the LAG, and
learned how this has changed.  It really doesn't make sense to put them
both in the <date> tag in DocBook, has tags for where to put the
revision.  How far are we going to talk about extending LinuxDoc?  How
long before it looks like the DocBook DTD, with just the ability to omit
end tags?

    Greg


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org