[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]

  • To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>,<bob@w...>,"Michael Champion" <mc@x...>,"XML DEV" <xml-dev@l...>
  • Subject: RE: best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
  • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:13:19 -0800
  • Thread-index: AcPqdWkuTBaqcxC8TEGozT/1AFE4DgAAICKgAADG5F8=
  • Thread-topic: best practice for providing newsfeeds ?

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: bob@w...; Dare Obasanjo; 'Michael Champion'; 'XML DEV'
Subject: RE:  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. 


Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member