- From: WeBMartians <webmartians@verizon.net>
- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:59:21 -0400
1582? No, no no... If we're going to implement <time>, please stay with the current specifications (epoch being year 0001) rather than further limit the tag's usefulness and/or engender more controversy. Other than that, I agree that this thread has just about run its course, trampled the garden, mowed through the fields, and otherwise acted like Godzilla on an "urban renewal kick." It's why I wrote many many days ago, "It won't die!" Cheers! BdG -----Original Message----- From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Smylers Sent: Saturday, 2009 March 14 04:35 To: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org; public-html at w3.org Subject: Re: [whatwg] <time> Robert J Burns writes: > Hi David, On Mar 13, 2009, at 11:19 AM, David Singer wrote: > > > Can we drop this topic? Apart from suggesting > > a) that the fully delimited date format be required (extended > > format); > > b) that year 0000 and before be allowed; > > c) that parsing the body text as 8601 may be dangerous if it's > > notated the same way but not (possibly proleptic) Gregorian; This thread appears to be proving that dates are very complicated and that to get them right for the general case involves lots of subtleties, which would be a reason for punting -- only doing the simplest possible thing for now, acknowledging that that doesn't meet all desirable scenarios, and leaving everything else for HTML 6. Even attempts to produce a small list of changes that we have consensus on yields others disputing them, showing that we don't have consensus. > Right now we have a draft that: 2) allows 0000 without attaching > sufficient meaning to it I don't think that's the case; the algorithm for parsing a year requires a number "greater than zero": http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/infrastructure.html#parse-a-month-component So my suggestion for a spec change is to replace "zero" with "1582". That further reduces the set of dates that <time> can represent, but avoids the complexity of pre-Gregorian dates, and avoids inadvertently giving a meaning to them that hampers the efforts of a future version of HTML to do all of this right. Smylers
Received on Saturday, 14 March 2009 04:59:21 UTC