W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > April 2010

[Bug 9519] Is it me, or is this a big deal not to support dates before year one?

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:39:51 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1O2Ijv-0008EM-AK@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9519


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |NEEDSINFO




--- Comment #1 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2010-04-15 06:43:50 ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Did Not Understand Request
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: Doesn't seem like a big deal... they didn't even use the same
calendar back then. You don't need a localising feature to refer to dates BCE,
just put them inline.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 06:43:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 April 2010 06:43:52 GMT