Subject: Re: Q: modfied vs issued vs created

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:05:31 +0200

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:38:53 +1000, Eric Scheid  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> you just said that before saving an entry that it is empty (and no way of
> changing it).

Well, that was wrong. It's not empty, it's just not there. At all. It  
first shows up after you've saved once.

> Once a value is saved in that field then MT doesn't change it, only the
> user can. MT doesn't have to do any comparisons.

Yes it does, because when the field shows up after you've saved, it's  
filled out with the initial 'created' value. After having discussed this  
with Arve, MT obviously haven't got any notion of 'issued' at all, even if  
it has a separate 'Publish' state, even. That is really bad publishing  
practice, and no one with real knowledge of how publishing works would  
build something like that.

> There is this broad concept of "the date of the document" (which is
> different from "the date this document was communicated"). People like to
> specify the date of their documents.

Fine. Just don't stick it in as a *formal* date, based on the Dublin Core  
elements. Dublin Core has no notion of «subjective» dates, so if Atom  
needs it, use whatever element name fits for the purpose, but don't take  
it from Dublin Core. I think 'display' could be a good date.

> People using it for future publishing, when they don't actually mean  
> "date of this document", are simply hacking their tool (which is
> lacking a proper embargo date field).

Yes, I agree. The correct Dublin Core term for future publishing (and  
future removal of a story) is 'available'[1], even.

____
[1] <url: http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#available>

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