It's not automatic, but PM also allows <ins> and <del> tags in nodes. They're handy for showing edits without any fuss. Rendering is up to the browser and css.

There is the kernel of a good idea here. I don't think it need be even as complicated as you have made it however. Many monks already add Update text when they make a significant edit. A way of facilitating this, already common practice, is all that is needed.

I'd suggest (as you do) an extra text input field to capture the update text and that that text be appended to the end of the node text with "Update:" prepended in bold and perhaps the whole lot wrapped in small tags.

That is a fairly light weight change and doesn't require new DB tables or other extra stuff added to track update history.

Mucking with node text gives me the queasies. However, you made me think of another possible implementation: an <update> tag that could be used inline, and that would get slightly "stamped" upon post.

Node text:

<p>This is some text with a vague notion.

<update>
<p>Let me clarify: I have a more specific notion.
</update>
[download]

Would get stored in the DB as:

<p>This is some text with a vague notion.

<update 2005-09-15 16:44>
<p>Let me clarify: I have a more specific notion.
</update>
[download]

Well, something like that, to insert a date stamp of some kind. On node render, you'd get:

<p>This is some text with a vague notion.

<div class='update'><div class='update-date'>2005-09-15 16:44</div>
<p>Let me clarify: I have a more specific notion.
</div>
[download]

<-radiant.matrix->
Larry Wall is Yoda: there is no try{} (ok, except in Perl6; way to ruin a joke, Larry! ;P)
The Code that can be seen is not the true Code
"In any sufficiently large group of people, most are idiots" - Kaa's Law

That's a pretty fair alternative with the advantage that the update entry can be placed anywhere within the node text.

Just to clarify my own notion:

The text from the update field would be wrapped up and appended to the end of the node text thus (borrowing from your timestamp idea):

<update 2005-09-15 16:44>Let me clarify: I have a more specific notion
+.</update>
[download]

and would render in a similar fashion to your suggestion:

<div class='update'><div class='updatehead'><b>Update</b></div>
<div class='update-date'>&nbsp;(2005-09-15 16:44)</div>:&nbsp;Let me c
+larify: I have a more specific notion.
</div>
[download]

---

Perl is Huffman encoded by design.

I'm ambivalent about prepending or appending additional text and flashing lights. Some nodes cry out for headlines:

Update: I really goofed here, don't use this!

Since it's easy enough to put suitable text anywhere in the node, I'm against any site code changes. I'd welcome conventions for update versioning, if something suitable is proposed. But serious documenting is rarely needed.

-QM
--
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of

Making it easy for people to "do the right thing" generally pays off. In this case the change would be fairly light weight, doesn't stop people doing it differently if they want, and wouldn't be particuarly "in your face".

We'll see what other comments are made, but I'm inclined to do this.

---

Perl is Huffman encoded by design.

Actually, users of the German language web board at Perl::Community.DE are used to that kind of qualifier.

It has the limitation that only the latest edit is marked - and not what the change comprised of.

Cheers, Sören

I don't like mandatory automatic stamps. I use preview for my initial posting and hit 'create' only when I think the response I give is useful, but I often go back and fine-tune it, rethink and improve it, and fix typos. If there were mandatory stamps, it would look like this.

Updated (2005-16-09 11:50:23)

Updated (2005-16-09 11:50:24)

Updated (2005-16-09 11:50:31)

Updated (2005-16-09 11:50:49)

Updated (2005-16-09 11:52:51) Thanks for spotting that problem.

Updated (2005-16-09 11:55:20)

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

As tinita already said, the 'fixing of typos' a couple of minutes after the original post would not be marked.

Then, some more minutes later, only the last edit would be automagically marked, and by whom the edit was (could well have been a janitor).
Thus all you'd ever see was that the node was later edited (i.e. not exactly in the state it was in when first written).

This puts just a little pressure on authors/editors to sometimes note what they've changed - and why.

Cheers, Sören

it would look like this.

who said that?
it could just show the last update in a small font. at least it's like that at perl-community.de, for example.
i would really like to see if someone updated their node silently. their could also be a minimum of time, so that, if you update up to, say 3 minutes after posting because of a typo, there would be no mandatory stamp.