[documentation] 'Last updated' information on handbook pages?

[Fernando P. García]

Ok, but at least it should be included in the body. Look at:
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Text-Terminal-HOWTO.html, they preserve a version and
a date of reference. Some are more specific:
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Linux+WinNT.html

Blessings!

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Steven Peck <sepeck at gmail.com> wrote:

> Book pages are not CCK type, CCK is not on Drupal.org at this time.
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Fernando P. García
> <fernando at develcuy.com> wrote:
> > I don't agree to have Timestamp because is inaccurate, but I agree to
> have a
> > CCK field named: "Last update", with description like "Please modify this
> > field only if you updated this content, It does not concerns typos and
> > styling".
> >
> > Blessings!
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Shai Gluskin <shai at content2zero.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree with Nat and Meitar,
> >>
> >> That time stamp is a data point. From reading the NYTimes to Wikipedia
> to
> >> Drupal.org a reader is obligated to assess the value/limitations of any
> >> particular piece of information. I think it is paternalistic to keep
> >> information out of folks hands because of a possibility that some folks
> >> might misinterpret the meaning of it.
> >>
> >> Reasons not to show information:
> >> * causes usability problems by mucking up presentation or page clarity.
> >> * takes up valuable system resources like running an "expensive" query.
> >>
> >> As long as it passes these tests, I'd be in favor.
> >>
> >> Shai
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:08 AM, Nathaniel Catchpole
> >> <catch56 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Meitar. I don't think having recently updated timestamps
> on
> >>> out of date information is going to lull people into a false sense of
> >>> security - at least not compared to now, where they appear pretty much
> >>> timeless except for the version taxonomy.
> >>>
> >>> This came up specifically in the case of module comparisons - if I see
> >>> that a page comparing modules hasn't been updated for 6 months, then
> >>> hopefully it'll indicate that things might have changed since then and
> >>> encourage me to update it. At the moment, I have no idea either way
> unless I
> >>> check the revisions tab (and I rarely do this unless I'm about to
> archive a
> >>> page or make a big edit, hardly ever if I'm actually reading
> documentation).
> >>>
> >>> Also, if I see a page that hasn't been updated since 2006 or something,
> >>> then it's an extra bit of encouragement to jump in and fix it.
> >>>
> >>> Nat
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> >>> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Fernando P. García, http://www.develcuy.com
> > Developer - Analista de Sistemas
> > +51 1 9 8991 7871, Mz. P Lt. 30 1et Urb. Pachacamac - VES, Lima - Perú
> >
> > --
> > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
> >
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
>



-- 
Fernando P. García, http://www.develcuy.com
Developer - Analista de Sistemas
+51 1 9 8991 7871, Mz. P Lt. 30 1et Urb. Pachacamac - VES, Lima - Perú
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/attachments/20080605/efe7f53d/attachment-0001.htm