W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2006

[whatwg] [wf2] Late comments and questions on Web Forms 2.0

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:28:28 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0608151027460.5340@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Christoph P?per wrote:
>
> *Henri Sivonen*:
> > 2.4.
> > Does ISO 8601 define how its flavor of the Gregorian calendar rolls
> > backwards all the way to, say, 1900 or 1 AD?
> 
> By default ISO 8601 uses the proleptic Gregorian calendar, i.e. there are no
> null days somewhere---depending on country---between 1582 and 1926, and it
> uses a year 0000, like astronomers but unlike historians do.
> The standard says, however, that the notation can also be used with different
> conventions like the common Julian-Gregorian mix, if the communicating
> partners have a prior agreement on one. I don't recall whether RFC 3339 says
> something on this point, the W3C Note <http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime> is
> quiet on it, but XML Schema <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime> does
> not use a year 0000 *yet*, but seems to use the Gregorian calendar
> prolepticly.

Henri said to use the proleptic Gregorian calendar too. I went with that.


> > 2.4.
> > Is it conforming to have leading zeros in a year that fills four digit
> > slots? E.g. 00002006-03-08T00:00:00Z
> 
> Any year number with not exactly four digits should only be allowed, when
> preceded by a plus or minus sign.

Since only positive dates are allowed, that solves that problem.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 03:28:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:28 UTC