W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Silently deprecating XHTML

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:02:57 +0100
To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.t5naq7yb64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:35:43 +0100, Frank Ellermann  
<hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unrelated, the draft still says RFC 3066, you can update it to 4646,
> I'm confident that this will work.

Yeah, we will in due course. Or maybe simply say BCP47. See also:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jan/thread.html#msg267


> Why do you use MM/dd/yyyy in the
> LastModified date ?

You mean the lastModified attribute of the Document object? That is  
because it was implemented that way before becoming part of a standard.  
Hopefully going forward such extensions are discussed earlier on so they  
can still be tweaked.


> It would be simpler to use one timestamp format
> everywhere, and allow historic US formats only for compatibility.

Content relies on lastModified returning what it does. For new features,  
such as the various new input types related to dates in Web Forms 2.0 and  
the <time> element we do try to unify them.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 15:00:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:13:58 GMT