Re: RFC: On date and time

[Iago Toral <itoral igalia com>]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:23:56 +0200, "Juan A. Suarez Romero" 
<jasuarez igalia com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 14:43 +0200, Guillaume Emont wrote:
> > Two metadata keys hold dates:
> >  - GRL_METADATA_KEY_DATE, "Publishing or recording date"
> >  - GRL_METADATA_KEY_CREATION_DATE, "Creation date"
>
> Now that you mention this question, maybe we should re-consider the
> GRL_METADATA_KEY_DATE. Currently, it is an ambiguous key: while
> CREATION_DATE has an explicit meaning, the date where the element was
> created, it's not the same in the case of DATE. Of course, 
> documentation
> says "publishing or recording date", but this meaning is not implicit 
> in
> the key name. Moreover, publishing date can be very different than
> recording date (and to be honest, recording date resembles quite a 
> lot
> to creation date).

Actually, the recording date must be the creation date, how could it be 
different? :)

> My suggestion is to drop the GRL_METADATA_KEY_DATE and replace it by
> other less ambiguous keys, like GRL_METADATA_KEY_PUBLISHED_DATE (not
> sure if we need this key right now) or
> GRL_METADATA_KEY_MODIFICATION_DATE.

I would be in favour of renaming _DATE to PUBLISING_DATE now. I would 
not care for a MODIFICATION_DATE right now though.

Iago