- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:02:57 +0100
- To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:35:43 +0100, Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> wrote: > Unrelated, the draft still says RFC 3066, you can update it to 4646, > I'm confident that this will work. Yeah, we will in due course. Or maybe simply say BCP47. See also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jan/thread.html#msg267 > Why do you use MM/dd/yyyy in the > LastModified date ? You mean the lastModified attribute of the Document object? That is because it was implemented that way before becoming part of a standard. Hopefully going forward such extensions are discussed earlier on so they can still be tweaked. > It would be simpler to use one timestamp format > everywhere, and allow historic US formats only for compatibility. Content relies on lastModified returning what it does. For new features, such as the various new input types related to dates in Web Forms 2.0 and the <time> element we do try to unify them. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 15:00:11 UTC