search

historical-data / schema

Microdata schema for historical data.
historical-data.org
30 stars 4 forks source link

rename 'rev' to 'modified' to better reflect its purpose and conform to convention #4

Closed stoicflame closed 12 years ago

stoicflame commented 12 years ago

Rename 'rev' to 'modified' to better reflect its purpose and conform to established conventions.

NatAtGeni commented 12 years ago

I think this is fine. 'rev' was borrowed from microformats.

stoicflame commented 12 years ago

How about this one? @nunjudd? @RobertGardner?

stoicflame commented 12 years ago

How about this one? @ninjudd? @RobertGardner?

ninjudd commented 12 years ago

Fine with me. Should it be lastModified?

On Sep 9, 2011, at 8:34 AM, Ryan Heatonreply@reply.github.com wrote:

How about this one? @ninjudd? @RobertGardner?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/historical-data/schema/pull/4#issuecomment-2052404

stoicflame commented 12 years ago

Should it be lastModified?

Isn't that kinda redundant? Why would it ever be any other kind of "modified"?

RobertGardner commented 12 years ago

My opinion is not strong on this one, but I too prefer 'modified'.

ninjudd commented 12 years ago

I don't have a strong opinion either. Just wanted to consider alternatives. Another possibility is modifiedAt since that indicates it is a date rather than a boolean.

On Sep 9, 2011, at 9:40 AM, RobertGardnerreply@reply.github.com wrote:

My opinion is not strong on this one, but I too prefer 'modified'.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/historical-data/schema/pull/4#issuecomment-2053131

RobertGardner commented 12 years ago

For consistency with schema.org names, perhaps modifiedDate would be best.

ninjudd commented 12 years ago

I like consistency.

On Sep 9, 2011, at 9:58 AM, RobertGardnerreply@reply.github.com wrote:

For consistency with schema.org names, perhaps modifiedDate would be best.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/historical-data/schema/pull/4#issuecomment-2053331