W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2006

Re: Number, Date, Time, Quantity

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:43:59 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200608302043.k7UKhxx01219@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org

> If there was a tag like <number>1,234.56</number>

This is an element, not a tag

I believe all of these have been proposed and discussed before,
except that date wasn't split into three.   shortdate and longdate,
as distinct elements should be rejected outright, because the
distinction is purely presentational and doesn't belong in HTML.

Please search the archives.

> If there was a tag like <shortdate>31/12/2006</shortdate>
> it could be displayed as 12-31-06 based on the users settings

It's an invalid date in the USA.  In my view, the only way of
making a date element work would be like:

<date ISOdate="2006-12-31">31/12/2006</date>

as that is the only form in which you are marking up the original text
and also providing a machine processable date in a form normally used
in standards (and the one used in XML schemas).

Note that Wikipedia does mark and transform dates, and that date formats
vary within the same language, so there is precedent for such transformations
being useful.  However the real point here would be that machines may
not be able to tell the difference between dates and reference numbers.

> If there was a tag like <time>23:59:59</time>
> it could be displayed as 11.59.59 PM

>From a standards point of view, time of day and day of year are
special cases of the same thing, so:

<date ISOdate="23:59:59-04:00">23:59 EDT</date> or
<date ISOdate="12:00">mid-day local time</date>

would be what would be required.

> This email is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom

You haven't named an individual natural person.  Presumably everyone
reading this should not be.  I think the version of this notice with
the term "individual" is even worse than the one with a more general 
definition of intended recipient.

> it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material.  

If we make the assumption that this was added in error, we can also make
the assumption that it was added in error when there is doubt as to 
whether the contents were intended to confidential.  If the contents were
obviously confidential, there would be no need to say they were.
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 20:54:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:14 UTC