W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > July to September 2011

Fwd: RE: HTML5 comments from 4.3.1

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:18:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4E2D18BA.1010307@w3.org>
To: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
[resent to get it into tracker, this time with tracker id! Aplogies!]
i18n-ISSUE-132: Pubdates on article

Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 23:47:12 -0700
From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
CC: public-i18n-core@w3.org <public-i18n-core@w3.org>

Hello Martin,

We recently replaced the time zones note. Your link points to the old 
(2005) version.

The new one is:

    http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/NOTE-timezone-20110705/
>
> On 2011/07/19 1:13, Phillips, Addison wrote:
>
> > 3. Section 4.4.4. The article element's description contains this note:
> >
> > --
> > Note: The time element's pubdate attribute can be used to provide the
> publication date for an article element.
> > --
> >
> > This note, while interesting, seems out of place? Also, the example given uses
> an incremental, as opposed to floating, time value. Pubdates are typically
> intended as floating:
> >
> >    <h1>The Very First Rule of Life</h1>
> >    <p><time pubdate datetime="2009-10-09T14:28-08:00"></time></p>
>
> I can't find the word 'floating', or the expression 'floating time value', in
> "Working with Time Zones".
>
> I don't know why you call the time the example is using "incremental".
> According to http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/#d2e163,
> incremental time is counted in seconds (or whatever) from a
> (system-dependent) epoch, and therefore (as far as I understand) not
> interchangeable between systems.

That's right. It's technically a field-base zone-dependent time (which, 
as it turns out, usually eventually takes the form of an incremental 
time --- as a JavaScript 'Date' object).

>
> I think what you want to say is that the example doesn't use a time zone offset,
> but should use one, so that it's clear at exactly which "absolute" point in time
> the publication was made (and thus it's clear e.g. who was first if two people
> published the same thing (assuming we can trust the stamps)).
>

No, the example has a zone offset:

    <p><time pubdate datetime="2009-10-09T14:28-08:00"></time></p>

The problem is that the -08:00 probably wants to be omitted to make it a 
floating date.

Your comment is right on in the case where we want to have a timestamp. 
But in my day-to-day experience with publication dates, the opposite is 
true just about as often. The Sunday New York Times wants to have been 
published on Sunday, regardless of what time zone you are in when 
reading it. Providing the offset allows you to compute local time at 
either the point of publication or to convert it to your own local time. 
But if you're not careful, you'll get point of publication time coerced 
into your own local time (and the date changes).

Addison
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 07:18:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 25 July 2011 07:18:50 GMT