Subject: Re: Q: modfied vs issued vs created

From: Graham Parks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 01:47:27 +0100

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceEntryDates solves all of these problems (though the text about when atom:issued may be updated needs work).

Graham Parks

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 20:37:18 +0200

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 01:47:27 +0100, Graham Parks <[email-masked]> wrote:

> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceEntryDates solves all of these  
> problems

«If an entry has been made available on several distinct occasions, this  
represents the date of the latest re-issue». I think this needs to be  
rephrased. If 'issued' is supposed to exist as an alternative to  
'created', then 'issued' can _never_ change, whether the entry is  
re-issued a thousand times.

I think 'created' is probably a better alternative for 'issued' than the  
other way around, and thus should 'issued' be the optional element, not  
'created'. It's a lot more interesting for an aggregator to know when the  
entry was first created than to know when it was first issued. Who would  
ever be interested in when the entry was _last_ issued, anyway?

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 14:49:09 -0400

On 3 Jul 2004, at 2:37 pm, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:

> «If an entry has been made available on several distinct occasions, 
> this represents the date of the latest re-issue». I think this needs 
> to be rephrased. If 'issued' is supposed to exist as an alternative to 
> re-issued a thousand times. I think 'created' is probably a better 
> alternative for 'issued' than the other way around, and thus should 
> 'issued' be the optional element, not 'created'.

You make a good point here, but go after the wrong solution. If an 
article is reissued, <issued> no longer represents the creation date. 
However the first time an article is published, they can be assumed to 
be the same, or very similar. The reason <issued> is required and not 
<created> is that most software will only know the date the user 
clicked the Publish button, not when the article was created.

> It's a lot more interesting for an aggregator to know when the entry 
> was first created than to know when it was first issued.

Why? Most use aggregators to keep up with news. It's a lot more 
interesting to something has been reissued than when that entry was 
first created.

> Who would ever be interested in when the entry was _last_ issued, 
> anyway?

Tim Bray's readers. Tim likes to reuse old articles rather than create 
new ones when he has something to post. Why not just use the modified 
date? Because almost everyone else who modifies old entries isn't 
trying to reissue them. A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping 
this difference. Publishers really do need a mechanism to modify an 
entry without re-issuing it, and to re-issue an entry without modifying 
it.

Graham Parks

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 21:41:36 +0200

> article is reissued, <issued> no longer represents the creation date.

Then we can't say that in the specification. Issued is issued, and never  
'created', and they will never share any semantics, whatsoever. They are  
of the same data type, but that's it.

> be the same, or very similar.

That's really of no interest to anyone. If someone would like to know when  
an article was created, they SHOULD NOT be encouraged to look at the  
'issued' date, if that date is bound to change every other minute.

> The reason <issued> is required and not <created> is that most
> software will only know the date the user clicked the Publish button,
> not when the article was created.

To take an example, Movable Type first creates an article, and then  
publishes it first when the user hits [Save] with the status set to  
'Publish'. I'm not sure how the internal structure of MT is, but there's  
at least no problem with having the first created date saved somewhere.

> interesting to something has been reissued than when that entry was

If it is how you say, that publishers tend to re-publish old entries, of  
course it is interesting to know when the entry was first written. It is  
about context. If you write something about the internet in 1996 and then  
re-issue the same article in 2004, it would actually be nice to have some  
idea of when the article was originally written. If the only date you  
receive is '2004-07-03', the readers will look very skewed on it when they  
read how you explain about great technology like «browsers», «HTML» and  
the likes.

However, if you edit the article, and publish it again, with a time span  
of two weeks, the article should not get a new 'issued' date, but an  
updated 'modified' date.

> new ones when he has something to post.

Uhm. What is it that he reuses? The ID's of the entries, or the content?

> Why not just use the modified date? Because almost everyone else who
> modifies old entries isn't trying to reissue them.

I have no idea whatsoever you're trying to say here. Would you care to  
elaborate a bit more, please?

> A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping this difference. Publishers
> really do need a mechanism to modify an entry without re-issuing it, and
> to re-issue an entry without modifying it.

I work in one of Norways largest news publishing corporations, and I will  
make a very strong claim that it's a lot more important to be able to  
modify an issued article, and reflect that in the Atom entry (but preserve  
the original 'created' date), than to re-issue a really old article and  
reflect that with an updated 'issued' date.