- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:06:36 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, David Singer wrote: > At 10:45 +0000 19/07/09, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, SJ Kissane wrote: > > > > > > I am concerned by the wording of this section. There are different > > > systems of week number -- as far as I can work out, this is the same as > > > ISO 8601 week numbering. But it nowhere explicitly says that. > > > > > > I think, the spec should have a normative reference to ISO 8601 for the > > > definition of week numbering. Then, if the spec wants to give an > > > informative recap of what ISO 8601 says, for the benefit of those who > > > don't have a copy (especially since it isn't free), that's fine. But I'm > > > worried, by inserting some complicated definition into the spec, does it > > > match exactly ISO 8601's definition? (I'm sure it does, but "are the > > > definitions the same?" is not immediately obvious from inspection.) > > > > They are not the same. ISO8601 doesn't define how you parse a week string, > > how you handle errors in such a string, and so forth. The numbers are > > compatible, and a valid HTML5 week string is an ISO8601 week string > > (though I don't know if the opposite is the case), but that's about it. > > > > While we could have an non-normative reference, in practice, it wouldn't > > add much, since (a) the HTML5 spec defines everything you might get from > > ISO8601, and (b) we don't want to have implementors think "oh, it's the > > same as ISO8601, I'll just use an ISO8601 date library", since such a > > library might get the parsing details wrong in terms of what HTML5 says. > > an informative note to that effect might be a good idea. Done. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 18:06:36 UTC