date formats

[David Merrill <dmerrill@lupercalia.net>]

The LAG, section 6.1, says that:

The <pubdate> tag in your header should be in the following format:

v1.0, 21 April 2000

This seems strange to me. The version number has nothing to do with
the date of publication. The example in DocBook:TDG uses only the year
of publication here, but doesn't give specific enough information to
know whether this is the recommended usage. Anybody know?

I take it, literally, to mean that this applies only to the <pubdate>
tag. What about other date tags, particularly the date in revhistory?

<revhistory>
  <revision>
    <revnumber>1.0</revnumber>
    <date>27 de janeiro de 2000</date>  <- taken from example.sgml

This particular example also brings up another wrinkle - language.
If we are using month names, then they could be in many different
languages. Using a standard ISO date format would mean fewer
differences in the dates:

    <date>2000-01-27</date>

not to mention being easier to parse in scripts.

Is there already a "standard" in place for this that I'm unaware of?
If so, let me know and I'll add it into the same section of the LAG as
the <pubdate> reference. If not, let's set one, please.


Thanks,
David



-- 
Dr. David C. Merrill                     http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                dmerrill@lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org

transfer, n.:
	A promotion you receive on the condition that you leave town.


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