Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Re: Article layour

[Imran Ghory]

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