| 1 |
"Sven Vermeulen" <swift@g.o> posted |
| 2 |
6de0e7060809030919m340af75dy2b0af22c8fa4f09c@××××××××××.com, excerpted |
| 3 |
below, on Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:19:53 +0200: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> In my opinion, documents should always have a "last modified" date. If |
| 6 |
> you want some sort of document lifecycle, you might want to introduce a |
| 7 |
> revision period (for instance, every vital doc should be revised every 3 |
| 8 |
> months, every other doc every year) and add in two headers: "last |
| 9 |
> revision" and "next revision date"... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That's pretty much what occurred to me as well. What seems to be missing |
| 12 |
is a "last reviewed on" date (revision suggests something other than the |
| 13 |
date in question changed, which may not be the case, thus I chose |
| 14 |
reviewed-on instead of your revised) to go with the last-updated date. |
| 15 |
The "next review due on" date would be nice too, but isn't really needed |
| 16 |
to correct this problem, I think. Even if such may be desired, I believe |
| 17 |
a static link to a policy documenting the review period policy would be |
| 18 |
fine and being static, wouldn't need updated every time. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 22 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 23 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives