[uf-discuss] [hcite] date-published

Tim White tjameswhite at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 20 17:44:40 PST 2007

Mike said:
>From Bruce D'Arcus on the wiki:
>"I've mentioned more than once that "date-published" is misleadingly
>specific; too much for real world citations. Consider that many books
>are published in the year preceding their copyright date, which is in
>fact the date used for citation. I'd prefer just "date" and
>"date-accessed" as a first cut. --Bruce 3 Feb 2007"
>I agree - this maps well to current practice in existing formats I
>know of - they tend to not specify the type of date, instead using
>fields like "month" and "year".
>Is anyone against changing 'date-published' to 'date'?

I vote for leaving it date-published. It really doesn't matter when consumers get their hands on a published piece, 
all that matters is when it is (claimed to be) published. 

So, looking at Mike's example, in Jan. 2007 many magazines have March 2007 dates on them. That should be considered the publication date. Think about five years from now when you go to look up that magazine: what is the date you will cite? March 2007. You may not know (or care) when it actually hit the shelves, and it doesn't matter.

~ Tim


Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list