W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > October 2003

Re: XHTML 2.0 <datetime> element proposal

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:01:07 -0800
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BBC59462.2F419%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On 10/29/03 2:03 PM, "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> 
>> boolean dst attribute, for Day Light Savings.
> 
> Daylight saving time isn't boolean.  Double daylight saving time is
> possible.
> 
> In any case, if there is a case for a special element, in my view it
> must include the ISO format date.  I would suggest there is a significant
> case for making it the content rather than an attribute, and treating
> localisation of the date as a styling issue.

I agree.  Something very simple like

 <time>[ISO8601 datetime]</time>

e.g.

 <time>2003-10-29T15:00-08:00</time>
 <time>P1D</time>

would be very useful. ("date" is just a special designation for a subset of
time values). And then challenge the CSS folks to come up with a mechanism
to declaratively restyle arbitrary ISO8601 date time strings into various
locale dependent legacy forms.

Similarly, I have encountered instances where a frequency element would have
been quite useful.  Something like:

 <freq>[decimalfrequency-unit]</freq>

e.g.

 <freq>60Hz</freq>
 <freq>88.5mHz</freq>

In any case, rather than waiting to add such new elements to XHTML 2.0, why
not simply create your own XHTML Modularization module[1] for them and mix
them in with XHTML 1.1 or XHTML Basic or any other XML language?

Tantek

[1]
 http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstraction.html#sec_4.4.1.
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 18:57:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:58 GMT