- From: Tex Texin <tex@xencraft.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 03:33:27 -0400
- To: aphillips@webmethods.com
- Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, 'Jungshik Shin' <jshin@i18nl10n.com>, public-i18n-geo@w3.org
With respect to date format and month names: http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech/#ri20030510.103018444 We should not publish strategies which aren't either established i18n practices or derived from standards, at least not without a clear warning. Are there any references for the month name approach? I agree with Jungshik and prefer the ISO 8601 approach with all numbers and haven't run into a situation where it was considered ambiguous with a 4 digit year. If there is ambiguity, provide an indicator (such as "yyyy-mm-dd") or a footnote on the page. Using month names increases the localization effort and therefore runs against internationalization. ISO 8601 is also recommended in the W3C date time note http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime and many other places, and is not mentioned in the guidelines (yet). I would prefer we endorsed 8601 as the first choice, and offered textual alternatives as a last resort (or not at all). My 2 yen. tex
Received on Saturday, 10 April 2004 03:34:32 UTC