Re: date formats

[Taketoshi Sano <kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>]

Hi.

In <10012071040.ZM18879@hoop.timonium.sgi.com>,
  on Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:40:58 -0500,
 "Greg Ferguson" <gferg@hoop.timonium.sgi.com> 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:
> 
> ---
> 
> if linuxdoc:
> 
>    <title>title of HOWTO, include "HOWTO" or "mini HOWTO"</title>
>    <author>first_name last_name,
>        <htmlurl url="mailto:email_address"; name="email_address">
>    </author>
>  * <date>v1.0, DD MMM YYYY</date>
>    <abstract>
>      brief description of what the document covers
>    </abstract>
> 
>  * unless a version tag is added; then split version out

If that (adding a new version element) will work for smooth
migration to the docbook, then I'll consider it.  But it will
take several weeks or months since I'm being very busy recently.

Basically I feel reluctant to modify/extend the DTD itself on
linuxdoc, since I originally intend to maintain it just to keep
backward-compatibility.  But I think the consensus on this list
wish to have the trans/tdate tag added in the linuxdoc dtd, so
I'm plan to integrate the separate linuxdoctr/linuxdoc dtd into
the new linuxdoc dtd.
 (As a sidenote, xfree86 dtd which is developped based on the linuxdoc
dtd fro XFree86 documents, now accepts trans/tdate elements since 
version 1.1.3 of doctools/xfree86.  You can get it from ftp.xfree86.org
along with the XFree86 4.0.1 source.  XFree86 doc team now also do their
effort to migrate their documents into docbook/xml, of course.)

For backward-compatibility purpose, I'll retain the support of
linuxdoctr dtd, but linuxdoc/linuxdoctr will be handled equally
in the future version of linuxdoc-tools. 
 (Please do not ask me "when ?" ;)

> ---
> 
> if DocBook:
> 
>  <artheader>
> 
>    <title>title of HOWTO, include "HOWTO" or "mini HOWTO"</title>
> 
>    <author>
>       <firstname>first_name</firstname>
>       <surname>last_name</surname>
>       <affiliation>
>          <address>
>             <email>email_address</email>
>          </address>
>       </affiliation>
>    </author>
> 
>    <!-- Additional author entries go here -->
> 
>    <pubdate>DD MMM YYYY</pubdate>
> 
>    <revhistory>
>      <revision>
>        <revnumber>v2.0</revnumber>
>        <date>DD MMM YYYY</date>
>      </revision>
> 
>      <!-- Additional, *earlier* revision histories go here -->

I wish to have the additional <revision> element for translation
here for translated docbook documents.  Can we agree on this ?

Translation maybe updated for the same original documents with 
various reasons such as addition of local translation note for
some domestic status explanations or correction of translation
errors.

>    </revhistory>
>
>    <abstract>
>      <para>
>        brief description of the document
>      </para>
>    </abstract>
> 
>   </artheader>
> 
> ---
> 
> More tags *could* be used (<othercredit>, <titleabbrev>, <orgname>,
> <copyright>, <authorinitials>, <revremark>, etc.) and perhaps
> more should be used, but I see this as being a *minimum*  set of
> tags that constitute a valid header area.
> 
> Please provide comments. As David says, we should get these
> guidelines into the style section of the LAG.

Good work, thanks for your effort.

-- 
  Taketoshi Sano: <kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>


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