Subject: Warning on document dates ...

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:58:38 +0200

Folks,

when I run the nit-tool I always get a warning like this:

   -- The document date (April 11, 2012) is 7 days in the past.  Is this
      intentional?

I tried to figure why this warning is there, but can't come up with a
good explanation. If the warning were for "7days in the future" I could
understand. If it is off by a year, one will get specific warning on
that,

Is the "xx days in the past" useful for anything?

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:01:27 +0200

On Apr 18, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:

> good explanation.
> If the warning were for "7days in the future" I could

Sure - it's useful for me…

I've often accidentally tried to upload a document that I've just edited and forgotten to bump the date field (or, sometimes edited a document and then tried to upload the old version!).

I think that this is useful for dummies like me...

W

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:12:38 +0200

Warren,

maybe - but that is when u are about to upload a document, but
you get the same warning if you look at a document that is in the
repository and has been there for 2 months (60 days in the past)
even if the date was correctly set when the doc was uploaded.

/Loa

--

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:15:29 +0200

> even if the date was correctly set when the doc was uploaded.

Oh. Well, that's just stupid then :-)

Guessing that's just a special case that hasn't been handled, cannot see any useful use -- other than maybe used by the expiration checker ;-)

W

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:25:12 -0400

> From: Loa Andersson [[email-masked]]
> 
> but you get the same warning if you look at a document that is in the
> repository and has been there for 2 months (60 days in the past) even
> if the date was correctly set when the doc was uploaded.

I expect that is so that there doesn't have to be a way to operate the
checker in two different modes, one when a document is being uploaded,
and one for other times.

Dale

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:53:27 +0200

> checker in two different modes, one when a document is being uploaded,

Bingo! :-)

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:03:48 -0500

On 4/18/12 8:01 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> I've often accidentally tried to upload a document that I've just edited and forgotten to bump the date field

By the way, with the latest set of tools, all the parameters in the date 
field are optional, and default to this year/this month/today. So you 
can avoid this problem in particular by simply adding an element like 
"<date/>", and the xml2rfc tools will take care of figuring out today's 
date for you.

/a

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:22:08 +0200

On Apr 18, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

> By the way, with the latest set of tools, all the parameters in the date field are optional, and default to this year/this month/today. So you can avoid this problem in particular by simply adding an element like "<date/>", and the xml2rfc tools will take care of figuring out today's date for you.

Whoa…. cool.

Didn't know this, that is awesome!

W

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:28:06 +0200

Henrik,

I guess "Bingo!" menas that the date check is meant to be used
when new documents are checked in, and if I use the nits tool
on documents already in the repository I can just drop that
info.?

/Loa

--

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:36:01 +0200

Hi Loa,

> on documents already in the repository I can just drop that

Yes.  The observation that idnits makes is clearly correct, but also
clearly not relevant in that case.

Best regards,

	Henrik