- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 16:43:55 +0000
- To: liam@w3.org
- Cc: tantek@cs.stanford.edu, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, public-html-xml@w3.org
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:13:01 -0500 Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > I was originally hoping that e.g. an RFC822 timestamp would be > supported, as that's a stable, well-documented and widely used format > for timestamps and seemed sensible for use in HTML (the ISO style is > obviously better for i18n but we already have that). Well, actually this date format did change in one of the documents that obsoleted RFC822. The change was to replace two digit years with four digit ones. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 19:55:45 UTC