[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Re: Article layour
From: |
Imran Ghory |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Re: Article layour |
Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:58:51 -0000 |
On 20 Jan 2001, at 23:10, Giles Burdett wrote:
> Hi Imran
>
> On 20-Jan-01, you wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > <revision date>
> >
> > A last update date so readers can know when an article may be out of
> > date.
> >
> > (we should standardize the date format dd/mm/yyyy or mm/dd/yyyy)
>
> How should we accommodate those documents that are not dated using the
> Gregorian system?
Convert the dating and provide the date in the original style in the
actual article.
> > <article ID>
> >
> > A fingerprint of the article + revision date. The fingerprint should
> > be taken from the first version of the article and kept for all
> > revisions.
> >
> > If a revision breaks away significantly from a previous article it
> > should be given a new fingerprint and version number.
>
> How much does it take to "break away"? Is this somthing the
> author/modifier of the article would decide on, or something the
> server could decide on? And would the new ID contain elements of the
> original ID, to indicate that it is a relation of its parent article?
Author, as they're most likely to know.
> > <previous article ID>
> >
> > If an article based upon another is given a new article-ID it should
> > also include a link to the article it was based upon.
>
> I suppose you could do it like that too...
>
> Which way would be better if you had an article that was a hybrid of
> two or more other articles?
If it was a hybrid then generate a new ID and list several <previous
article IDs> (Sort of like usenet does)
Imran Ghory