W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: [WAI-IG] Date & number format

From: <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:19:51 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <200312051319.hB5DJqV7000584@asterix.andreasen.se>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

On  5 Dec, jon@hackcraft.net wrote:

>> *If* there are no language constraints, then spelling the month out is
>> unambiguous whatever format (conventional US, EU, JP) you choose. (I realise
>> that is a big if)
> Yes, I mustn't have been making myself clear when I said that you should use 
> the full month name if you can.
> It's only when a client is stupid enough to insist on a short date (for reasons 
> I never understand but figure must have something to do with the physical size 

  That, I would hope, is when you point out to said client that the
  system isn't going to be very userfriendly, that the size of the
  screen is an unknown factor, and that accessibility actually matters.

  After all, a demand for frames would not mean you used that without
  pointing out the accessibility implications ?

> problem is though that the formats 03/04/1984, 04/03/1984, 03-04-1984 and 04-03-
> 1984 simply don't work unless:

  Not, but the format

    "xx monthname year-with-four-digits"

  work in all contexts; written - of course - fully and in the same
  natural language as the document itself.

  If you then want to use the ISO format internally, fine. However, if
  you MUST use an abbreviated, locale-dependent, format towards the end
  user, then I still suggest dd-mm-yyyy - and, of course, always include
  that, as the OP had done.

    <label for="date">Date (in dd-mm-yyyy format)</label>
    <input type="text"

  would be my suggestion.
 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 08:20:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:26 UTC