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

Re: [whatwg] <time>

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:51:56 +0100
Message-ID: <49BEF42C.6000509@malform.no>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
David Singer 2009-03-16 18.54:
> At 19:01  -0500 14/03/09, Robert J Burns wrote:

>> However, if the UA displays the information in a non-machine readable 
>> form, how does it make that conversion for presentation purposes. Does 
>> 0000-01-01 get displayed as 1 January 1 BC? Or as 1 January 00?
> 
> UA choice;  it might display it in a different (mappable) calendar 
> system entirely.  That's one of the major points of having a 
> well-defined day-labelling system - it can be mapped to any other 
> well-defined system.

To what degree is the purpose of an ISO date conversion to another 
format? The ISO format is designed to be both readable and machine 
readable. Shouldn't UAs primarely display it in raw format - so 
that it can play its role as reference time? Eventually with the 
localized time side-by-side?

> At 13:14  +0100 16/03/09, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> I can live with @datetime limited to ISO-8601, as long as @datetime 
>> also lives up to ISO-8601's own limitations: It isn't valid beyond 
>> 1582-10-15
> 
> I assume you mean 'before'. 

I live in the middle and look right and left. ;-)

> On the contrary, it says explicitly:
> "The Gregorian calendar was introduced on 15 October 1582. In the 
> calendar set by this standard the
> calendar day preceding that calendar day is referred to as 14 October 
> 1582."

You forgot the most important word in that quote - some space 
characters before it reads "EXAMPLE" - it is not normative. In the 
text that is normative, it says "For the  purposes of this 
International Standard the calendar based on these rules is 
referred to as the Gregorian calendar." The ISO standard knows 
that it is stretching the word "Gregorian".

I guess you are satisfied that I agree that <time> should have an 
attribute reserved for ISO time. I would prefer a name that says 
@isotime. And users must be made aware that it is an ISO date.

> Don't forget that there are plenty of cases where, alas, the exact day referred to is uncertain and cannot be mapped to any other calendar.

But even then the readers are worth being notified that ISO time 
is what they are getting.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 00:52:39 UTC

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