[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: date formats
> 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 [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]