W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2010

[whatwg] <time> element feedback

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:09:49 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinDpwEcskJ5ZgchQsbT-WQu3Jx9D1HrfnMh5f2Z@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Ashley Sheridan
<ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote:
> I think localisation does have a valid use though. Consider a page written in English with the date 01/12/2010. Is that date the 1st December, or the 12th January? The only clue might be the spelling of certain words in the document, but even then, the most popular office software in use at the moment defaults to American spelling for its spell-check feature, even if bought in England, which leads to words being spelt wrong and giving the reader no good clue as to what the date might be.
>
> Localisation in this case would mean that I could read the document and easily figure out what the date was.

What do expect the browser to do in this case?  Flip it to 12/01/2010
if appropriate, or rephrase it like "January 12, 2010" (or "December
1, 2010")?  The former would make things much worse, because now
rather than having to guess whether the *page* is using American or
British convention (usually not too hard), you have to guess what
convention your *browser* thinks is right (and it might be someone
else's computer, a public computer, . . .).

If the author wants the latter effect, on the other hand, why don't
they just write out the date that way to begin with, since they aren't
actually looking for it to vary between viewers?
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2010 13:09:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:26 UTC