Print

Print


Hi Martin!
The number of arguments is densifying (and makes me thinks heavily).
Anyone to take the responsability to at least open an SF entry. It  
looks that there is a real issue, whatever the variety of solutions we  
have.
Laurent

Le 25 juin 09 à 22:54, Martin Holmes a écrit :

> Hi Laurent,
>
> Laurent Romary wrote:
>> I have been using (perhaps abusively) <revisionDesc> to record the  
>> publication stages of a journal paper. How do you feel with:
>> <revisionDesc>
>> <change when="2007-11-22">Submitted</change>
>> <change when="2008-11-04">Revised</change>
>> <change when="2009-02-17">Accepted</change>
>> </revisionDesc>
>
> The problem with this is that most of us have more detailed revision  
> information cataloguing lots of changes in the <revisionDesc>, and  
> these don't necessarily intersect with the document status. I don't  
> much care when the document changed from proofing to published; but  
> I do care when (possibly after publication) an erratum was  
> corrected. I think on reflection that the revisionDesc is actually  
> not the place for the document status.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> -- 
> Martin Holmes
> University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
> ([log in to unmask])
> Half-Baked Software, Inc.
> ([log in to unmask])
> [log in to unmask]