- From: Jim O'Donnell <jim@eatyourgreens.org.uk>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 22:06:30 +0000
On 5 Mar 2009, at 15:17, Greg Houston wrote: > Personally, I think it would be an improvement to the datetime > attribute if it was valid for at least -9999 - 9999: > > <p> ... For these events to take place within a three week or so > period is simply impossible. The <time > datetime="-0004-03-13">eclipse</time> cannot be the one written in the > records of Josephus.</p> I agree that this would be an improvement, since it would make <time> compatible with hCalendar by using ISO8601 for datetime. By remarkable serendipity, Paul Tarjan posted a presentation about searchmonkey today http://www.slideshare.net/ptarjan/semantic-searchmonkey It mentions searching the web by date, where that information is available. So I would say a key use case for marking up historic dates is searching large archives by date eg. searching the National Maritime Museum archive for Elizabethan Navy records dating from 1595. Wikipedia uses the date-time design pattern, from microformats, to mark up historic dates using ISO8601. In addition, TEI is widely used by archives and libraries to mark up texts, including ISO8601 dates (http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/P4/html/ref-DATE.html). Since authors are already publishing dates online, surely HTML5 should accept all ISO8601 dates rather than a limited subset, which requires additional processing on the part of authoring and publishing software to filter out valid dates that are invalid HTML5. Regards Jim Jim O'Donnell jim at eatyourgreens.org.uk http://eatyourgreens.org.uk http://flickr.com/photos/eatyourgreens http://twitter.com/pekingspring -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090305/8ac5eca4/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:06:30 UTC