W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2009

Re: [whatwg] <time>

From: Jim O'Donnell <jim@eatyourgreens.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:52:39 +0000
Message-Id: <8769D30B-A5C7-4167-9D64-926327F774BE@eatyourgreens.org.uk>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org

On 11 Mar 2009, at 04:46, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

>> This is already a solved problem in the Text Encoding Intiative  
>> (TEI). [ ... ] <date calendar="Julian" value="1732-02-22">Feb. 11,  
>> 1731.</date> [ ... ] We can't change the author's original written  
>> dates, but it would be useful to normalise documents using the  
>> Julian calendar to proleptic Gregorian dates.
>
> Yes, the draft needs to clear up the (mis)understanding that <time>  
> requires authors to place Gregorian dates in the original.
>
> If the calendaric meta information should be available to human  
> consumers, then then @title seems like a better place. The draft  
> could recommend how to use @title for <time>.


How about something like <time calendar="Julian" value="1732-02-22"  
title="22 February 1732">Feb. 11 1731</time>, where title and  
calendar are optional?

Regards
Jim

Jim O'Donnell
jim@eatyourgreens.org.uk
http://eatyourgreens.org.uk
http://flickr.com/photos/eatyourgreens
http://twitter.com/pekingspring
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 07:53:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:33 GMT