- From: Jim O'Donnell <jim@eatyourgreens.org.uk>
- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:20:24 +0000
On 13 Mar 2009, at 16:19, David Singer wrote: > Can we drop this topic? Apart from suggesting > a) that the fully delimited date format be required (extended format); > b) that year 0000 and before be allowed; > c) that parsing the body text as 8601 may be dangerous if it's > notated the same way but not (possibly proleptic) Gregorian; > I agree, with the addition of time periods denoted by two datetimes seperated by a / eg. 1914/1918. This would bring HTML5 in line with existing authorship practices in use in TEI. Authors will be able to encode any historical date be it Julian, Roman, Mayan, Chinese etc by continuing to do what they're already accustomed to doing - publishing the machine readable date as a proleptic Gregorian date. The proposed schemes for alternative calendars seem like a red herring to me, since noone in practice encodes machine readable versions of alternative calendars when digitising a text. Regards Jim Jim O'Donnell jim at eatyourgreens.org.uk http://eatyourgreens.org.uk http://flickr.com/photos/eatyourgreens http://twitter.com/pekingspring -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090314/08076a50/attachment.htm>
Received on Saturday, 14 March 2009 04:20:24 UTC