- From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:05:26 +1000
- 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 but for historical documents, encyclopedias, geological, astronomical and 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