W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2006

[whatwg] Consistency of date formats between WF 2.0 and WA 1.0

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:48:04 +0200
Message-ID: <06F51C1D-1461-4CCD-A4FB-4F996A320E94@iki.fi>
Why does WA 1.0 require the year to be exactly 4 digits long when in  
WF 2.0 it is four or more digits?

Why doesn't WA 1.0 make 1 AD the first year thus dodging the year  
zero issue like WF 2.0?

Have I understood correctly, that
  * WF 2.0 date formats never allow surrounding white space for  
document conformance and must be rejected by UAs if they do
  * WA 1.0 Specific moments in time never allow surrounding white  
space for document conformance but UAs must gracefully ignore  
surrounding white space and trailing garbage
  * WA 1.0 Vaguer moments in time always allow surrounding white space
Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a consistent policy about this?

Why do WA 1.0 datetime formats for attributes allow space around "T"  
or multiple spaces in place of "T" when WF 2.0 only allows "T"? Also,  
why are spaces allowed before the time zone designator in the  
attribute variants in WA 1.0 when WF 2.0 does not allow spaces before  

Also, the "in content" variant of the Vaguer moments in time  
algorithm is not stable over time, because Unicode can add more Zs  

Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi
Received on Saturday, 18 November 2006 02:48:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:49 UTC