Data label in HTML format ("Published") could be misleading

[joeroe]

In HTML format (and perhaps others?) the frontmatter field date is by default labelled "Published". There are circumstances where this could be misleading, e.g. for drafts or scientific preprints where "published" generally refers to the final publication.

Although this can be configured, I suggest changing the default label to something more neutral, like "Date".

[mcanouil]

Thanks for the feedback.

This would break every documents that use the default since the first release of Quarto.

for drafts or scientific preprints where "published" generally refers to the final publication.

This is only one use case of all possible ones in Quarto. For website, or online books, published is the right term.

In my opinion, "date" is not neutral, it's ambiguous because it conveys no meaning.

In the future, instead of bypassing the issue template, please use the discussion board as requested in the issue menu. Thank you!

• https://github.com/quarto-dev/quarto-cli/discussions/categories/feature-requests

[joeroe]

Thank you for the quick response, @mcanouil, though I must admit I am disappointed by the dismissive tone in response to a well-meaning suggestion.

This would break every documents that use the default since the first release of Quarto.

Does this project really consider a change to wording in rendered output "breaking"? That doesn't match my experience as a user...

for drafts or scientific preprints where "published" generally refers to the final publication.

This is only one use case of all possible ones in Quarto. For website, or online books, published is the right term.

Yes that is why I prepended this statement with "e.g.", meaning "for example". I don't think "published" is the right term for unpublished websites or online books either.

In my opinion, "date" is not neutral, it's ambiguous because it conveys no meaning.

I suggested "date" because it exactly matches the name of the frontmatter field, date. It means that this is the calendar date associated with the document.

In the future, instead of bypassing the issue template, please use the discussion board as requested in the issue menu. Thank you!

I did by best to choose the right option and it was not my intention to "bypass" anything. This is not a feature request and the bug report template (my first thought) merely added some irrelevant headings.

[mcanouil]

Thank you for the quick response, @mcanouil, though I must admit I am disappointed by the dismissive tone in response to a well-meaning suggestion.

I apologise, that was not intended at all.

(I don't decide what changes are to made or not in Quarto CLI, only maintainers do)

I did by best to choose the right option and it was not my intention to "bypass" anything. This is not a feature request and the bug report template (my first thought) merely added some irrelevant headings.

I did not imply you did not.
The discussion board is better to discuss such changes and to incubate them.
That's why the feature requests are in discussions.
It also allows the maintainers to focus on issues.
I should have explained the rational.