On 6 Apr 98, David Norris wrote: > > Machine readable dates usually end up inside elements where the machine > > uses them... META, INS, DEL, etc. > > > > Where dates need to be human readable, I prefer to put something written > > out like "April 4, 1998". > > Excellent point. Some machine readable dates are very human readable, > though. A format that is both easily machine and human readable would be > preferable. The ISO 8601 format isn't too bad, though. Well, "human readable" as in putting something in the text of a page like "This event will be happening June 4, 1999 at 4pm" or "This page was last updated April 7" etc. If we're going to discuss a way to notate dates and times to make them more machine-friendly (mainly web robots,proxies, intelligent agents, and browsers) then we have to think/discuss what machines will do with those dates. o Translation is a separate issue from markup (although it would be nice to have an element or style sheet attribute to recommend against translating the contents... for instance, names of people, geographical locations, or specific technical terms). o Some attributes can already be marked up for machines to handle: as in http-equiv's for "Last-Modified" and "Expires" (an aside: any work towards adding the use of ISO dates in the HTTPD specs?) o INS and DEL elements are useful but limited. When I get around to looking in the archives, I'd like to dig out my proposals for DATED (dated material) and CHANGED (notate changes in a document) elements. RobReceived on Tuesday, 7 April 1998 01:39:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:59:02 GMT