On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > Thomas Dickey wrote: > > > When perusing the website for news, it would be useful if the pages were > > marked (in their source) as generated or manually updated. For the former > > (unless they're generated on demand), a modification date would also be > > useful. For the latter, an RCS/CVS/etc identifier to distinguish > > successive versions is normally expected. > > > > Are the pages all generated from another format, or are some in CVS > > (somewhere)? > > By the way... what are you looking for? CVS identifiers wouldn't
If it's maintained (i.e., if the file isn't edited w/o checking it in), it's a quick way to check if the file's been changed recently. The identifier also provides a point of reference to check if there are changes that aren't committed. Hand-coded dates are more readable (and of course I use those where readability is a factor), but the automatic ones are preferable for identifying distinct versions. > necessarily help to determine that new information has been posted since > commits for spelling fixes, grammar changes, dead link correction, etc. > would cause irrelevant noise in the modified date tags. That's really > why I chose to put a hand-coded date at the top of the pages; that way > people are notified when content has been modified in a meaningful way, > but there aren't false-positives when minor changes have been made. > > Would CVS identifiers still be useful for whatever you are trying to do? > Maybe I'll start adding them as comments for starters but still keep > the hand-modified date for each page. > > Harold > > -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net