- From: Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:01:31 +0000
In message <619D9F095A7941EEBCBB05FD4B03F523 at pirate>, WeBMartians <webmartians at verizon.net> writes >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. What's the expected end-of-life date for HTML5? Do we really want to hamstring ourselves 'til then, by considering only current, as-of-2009, capabilities? >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? ISO 8601 is, I understand, unequivocal on that matter. [...] >I do see the "no BCE" compromise as a workable one. That's an interesting use of "compromise"! -- Andy Mabbett
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 15:01:31 UTC