[uf-discuss] [hcite] date-published
michael.mccracken at gmail.com
Thu Mar 29 10:59:55 PST 2007
2007/2/21, Tim White <tjameswhite at yahoo.com>:
> Jeremy said:
> >Though not really arguing
> >against Tim's reasons, there are cases in which citations can have a
> >date published and a date visited or accessed.
> Most definitely. I did not mean to discount the value of date-accessed.
> >That said, should there also be a date-accessed or date-visited value
> >for hCite?
> I believe date-access is in the staw schema... yup, it's there.
> ~ Tim
OK, I disappeared for a while there, but is it fair to summarize this thread
by saying that the two field names we have the best evidence for in terms of
usage on the actual web are 'date-published' and 'date-accessed'?
I've had my mind changed about my earlier position that using 'date'
would be better than 'date-published'. Vagueness of the data aside,
the majority of our examples show at least an intent of describing a
publication date, and I think we don't gain anything by making our
field name less specific.
Therefore, the schema will stay as-is on the wiki at
UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
More information about the microformats-discuss