Re: date formats

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

> 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>


<title>Title of HOWTO, include "HOWTO"</title>


> ---
> 
> if DocBook:
> 
>  <artheader>
> 
>    <title>title of HOWTO, include "HOWTO" or "mini HOWTO"</title>


<title>Title of HOWTO, include "HOWTO"</title>
 

>    <pubdate>DD MMM YYYY</pubdate>
> 
>    <revhistory>
>      <revision>
>        <revnumber>v2.0</revnumber>
>        <date>DD MMM YYYY</date>
>      </revision>
> 
>      <!-- Additional, *earlier* revision histories go here -->


I've taken to NOT keeping a complete revision history, but instead just
the last few <revision>s.  The complete log is stored in CVS, so I can
see the entire history.  


> 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.


Perhaps we could add the rest of the tags inside of comments <!-- -->,
so that they're available, but authors don't feel obligated to use all
of those tags?

    Greg


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