- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:44:18 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > > Due to a lot of people advocating usage of <br/> / <br /> in text/html > > content it is more cost-effective to simply allow it -- given that it > > works interoperably in "current" browsers -- than to try to change the > > mindset of all those authors. > > Hm, I don't like this design principle, but it certainly is a design > principle. I like the design principle, but I don't much like the result in this case (allowing />). > Unrelated, the draft still says RFC 3066, you can update it to 4646, I'm > confident that this will work. Updated to BCP47. > Why do you use MM/dd/yyyy in the LastModified date? It would be simpler > to use one timestamp format everywhere, and allow historic US formats > only for compatibility. Agreed; unfortunately lastModified is set by backwards compatibility concerns. On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > 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. Indeed. > 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. Indeed. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 23:44:54 UTC