Lists Home |
Date Index |
I disagree. Most tools insert this date automatically. I'd be very suspicious of a tool that allowed users to directly edit the posting date of an entry, let alone edit the original + posting date. I agree with Bob that having a published + updated date would be useful.
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth, minus 40% inheritance tax.
From: Joshua Allen
Sent: Tue 2/3/2004 9:02 AM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Dare Obasanjo; 'Michael Champion'; 'XML DEV'
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
> date that it was last modified. So, users get entries that appear to
> be "old" even when they are "new." This confuses them. The issue here
> has *nothing* to do with data format -- it is a question of semantics,
My experience shows exactly the opposite; people report "new" when actually a post is old. But in any case, I fail to see how adding another field will stop people from putting the wrong dates in those fields -- the semantics of "pubDate" are remarkably clear, and people still screw it up. I would bet that in 99% of cases, people screw it up because they don't know better, NOT because "pubDate is the only field available and I really, really, want to store the last-update date in the field".
Solving user ignorance by adding more features is not very smart.