- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:11:56 -0800
At 13:59 -0500 24/02/09, WeBMartians wrote: >It's back! It won't die! :-) > >Although it can be argued that a standard should not consider the >work required for implementation, many of the trade-offs in >reference to times and dates do indeed take the present state of >code into consideration. > >One reason for not supporting BCE is a disagreement between >historians and, say, astronomers, on how to represent the year >immediately preceding year one. Is it year -1 (1 BCE) or year zero? > >Currently, the text states that all dates and times since the >beginning of the common era (0001-01-01 00:00:00Z) must be >supported. Yes, the Javascript values can specify dates and times >before this epoch. However, there is no way to interrogate the >environment as to whether or not such values can be used with ><time>. That would require much more work. Thus, the limitation of >common era. > >I'd love to see support for BCE and even for prolepsis and >non-Gregorian calendars. ...but I do see the "no BCE" compromise as >a workable one. ISO 8601 is quite precise on this issue. Since these are both machine and human-readable, why is this precision a problem? Why would we not use ISO 6709 (Annex H, text string) as the format for location? -- David Singer Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 12:11:56 UTC