Re: blank template, again

[David Lawyer <dave@lafn.org>]

> On Jun 15,  2:32pm, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> > Subject: blank template, again
> >
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 08:10:26PM -0400, Greg Ferguson wrote:
> What about the use of a revision history? Using it makes the date and
> rev number implementation cleaner; rather than slamming both into
> <pubdate>. Also, I would point out that the history should (probably)
> be done with the most-recent entry at the top of the stack (more style
> issues).
> 
> Example:
> 
>    <revhistory>
> 
>       <revision>
>          <revnumber>v0.06</revnumber>
>          <date>15 June 2000</date>
>          <authorinitials>gjf</authorinitials>
>           <revremark>
>             Fixed some more stuff
>          </revremark>
>       </revision>
[snip (a repeat of this for earlier revisions)]

I've pointed out before that with automated submissions, authors may
send in new revisions weekly (or in the extreme even daily).  Thus I
don't think a revision history in the above format should be used.  It
adds too much bloat to the document.  Also, cannot one check the CVS
system if they are really interested in the revision history?

I would leave it up to each author to keep whatever revision history
they want to and in whatever way they want to.  I do it in a long
comment that can be read only in the .sgml version and also sometimes
mention what's new in each new version.  Of course a major revision
should have some mention in the body of the document.  It could list
all the changes, or if the author is pressed for time could just say
that it's a "major revision".  Thus I'm in favor of flexibility
instead of the above format.

			David Lawyer


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