- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:37:22 -0500
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Sam Kuper<sam.kuper at uclmail.net> wrote: > 2009/7/30 Bruce Lawson <brucel at opera.com> >> >> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:05:10 +0100, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper at uclmail.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> I sure hope there are! Historians and classicists are increasingly >>> publishing to the web, and being unable to mark up years BCE in HTML 5 >>> would >>> hinder this. That said, marking up a year, say 1992 AD, (as opposed to a >>> specific day within a specific month within a specific year, e.g. 3rd >>> September 1992) also seems to be hard or impossible in HTML 5... unless >>> I've >>> misread the spec. >> >> Orthodoxy has it that there is no use case for marking up an ancient date >> or "fuzzy date" like "June 2009" using <time>. I disagree, and this has been >> discussed many times before. Do you have any concrete use cases or examples >> of how marking these up using <time> would be necessary? > > Not for BCE; I'm not working on that period at the moment, but excepting > that, here are a couple of good examples with ranges: > http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-10762.html > http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-295.html > http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-6611f.html > Now, either there should be markup available for ranges, or it should at > least be possible to specify components of a date independently of each > other, and to imply (at least for humans) a "range" spanning these different > date elements as appropriate. Now, here's the million-dollar question: Why do you need <time> or something like it for these dates? You seem to have them marked up quite fine as it is. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 08:37:22 UTC