Re: date-published

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 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


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. 

So, looking at Mike's example, in Jan. 2007 many magazines
have March 2007 dates on them. That should be considered the
publication date. Think about five years from now when you
go to look up that magazine: what is the date you will cite?
March 2007. You may not know (or care) when it actually hit
the shelves, and it doesn't matter.

 
~ Tim

tjameswhite.com'>h
ttp://www.tjameswhite.com">tjameswhite.com





 
____________________________________________________________
________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

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  
against Tim's reasons, there are cases in which citations
can have a  
date published and a date visited or accessed. When citing
websites  
and web pages, for instance, some citation formats display
date  
published and date visited, when that information is
available. More  
often than not, citations for websites and web pages ask for
date  
visited instead of date published.

That said, should there also be a date-accessed or
date-visited value  
for hCite?

Jeremy
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 2/21/07, Jeremy Boggs <jeremyboggsgmail.com> 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 wild. I do belive there have been
examples
added to the wiki which do use date-accessed

-brian

-- 
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss