W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2009

Re: [whatwg] <time>

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:05:26 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0903110405h56c7711dl3b5cc74d6d64610e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
> The more and more I read this thread the more I feel that trying to shoehorn
> Gregorian dates into this in all circumstances is going to needlessly
> complicate things for everyone involved: users, authors and implementors
> alike. For very limited use cases such Gregorian dates might be acceptable

Conversely, I am anticipating this element being hugely useful in
marking up the mass of dates/times we publish daily ... receipt
numbers, event listings and bookings, recent/current news, job
listings, closing dates, etc. It's also going to assist with solving
the contention around hCalendar's use of abbr by providing a viable
alternative. At least, for events within the gregorian calendar, as
noted.
At any rate, I don't think these are 'limited' use cases... imho, it
is of huge benefit. I hope the time element remains simple and easy to
author.

> but for historical documents, encyclopedias, geological, astronomical and
> all sorts of other disciplinary documents, it just is insufficient.

I agree time, as currently specified, is insufficient. Lots of options
with metadata (dublin core, RDF, and all that) but that's not directly
relevant to time markup.

cheers
Ben
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 11:06:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:43 UTC