Re: In addition to INS and DEL elements: UPD(ated)

Rob (
Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:23:44 -0500

Message-Id: <>
From: "Rob" <>
To: Aymeric Poulain Maubant <>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:23:44 -0500
Subject: Re: In addition to INS and DEL elements: UPD(ated) 

Aymeric Poulain Maubant <> 

> All these needs are similar and can truly be handled by new attributes
> 1. new|changed|deleted|pending|dated may not be exhaustive ?

Probably not. Better to define it the same way as <LINK REL/REV=...> 
or <META NAME/HTTP-EQUIV= ..> .are handled. Anything can be put 
there, but some values are 'standard' and recognized by software.

> 2. whyrev fromdate tilldate may not be well named ?

They aren't. I'd use 'revision-cite' (or 'rev-cite') or simply
'cite'. Note a problem is that (depending on how some browsers
handle this) bizarre hacks of links may be used/abused. But these
might be genuinely useful too for footnoting sections or quotes.

Rather than 'fromdate' and 'tilldate' I'd suggest 'datetime' and 

> 3. "revised=dated" seems strange. Maybe an other choice for "revised"
> (still compatible with new|changed|deleted|pending) or an other choice
> for "dated", like temporary or limited ?

The 'revised=dated' or 'revision=dated' is unnecessary. If a 
datetime= or expires= is defined, it's assumed dated. The revision 
type would mofiy with 'inserted, deleted, changed' when an equivalent 
to INS, DEL or UPD is meant.

IMPORTANT: How are style-sheets to be applied to them, though?
If there's no clear way of defining pseudo-classes then INS, DEL and 
DATED etc. may still be necessary.

Note some differences in behavior too. INS and DEL can be used with a 
pseudo-date setting in the viewer to see what a document looked like 
at a certain time (in theory, anyway; handling complex changes and 
rewrites could be  problematic).  DATED and UPDated aren't meant for 

Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl (
(Se habla PGP.)