[whatwg] Issues relating to the syntax of dates and times

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
To: "Pentasis" <pentasis at lavabit.com>
Cc: <whatwg at lists.whatwg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Issues relating to the syntax of dates and times


> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Pentasis wrote:
>>
>> No, I understand. That was not the point I was making. I mean it the
>> other way around.
>>
>> I am *not* saying that the second example (44BC) should be able to be
>> marked-up like this, but that -because we can't mark that one up-
>> neither shoudl we mark up the second example. In other words the spec
>> should be clear on the fact that it is not intended for this kind of use
>> either. Perhaps it should be more of a "time-stamp"? (like the
>> address-element is actually only used for the author of the
>> article/page/site so this element is like that?)
>>
>> I hope I make myself clear?
>
> The spec draws the line already -- it says that the date has to be in the
> proleptic Gregorian calendar, and that the year has to be greater than
> zero. Now admittedly even down near the bottom of that the dates get a bit
> unspecific, but I'm not sure what we can really do about that. Drawing the
> line around 1582 seems somewhat arbitrary as well. At least 0001 is a neat
> place to draw the line, since it is the place at which the syntax would
> have to change in some way.
>

Like I said, I completely understand the issues here. It just seems a bit 
strange to me to choose one specific calendar and promote that one to 
"exact". thereby not only limiting the use of the time-element in regard to 
*any* time/date but even within its own calendrical base (1582 as you 
correctly point out, but also to any leap-stuff that came after it).
I still think it would be better to simply let go of the "we want the 
time/date to be exact (in relation to our current calendar/clocks)" and use 
a more relative construct. But only because I find it illogical from a 
semantical point of view. I can accept the technical limitations. So I will 
concede ;-)
in the end it is up to the author to use this element and I strongly suspect 
it will be misused and abused because of it's illogical limitations (this is 
no critisism, just an observation of the element itself)

Bert

Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2008 02:30:11 UTC