- From: <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:19:51 +0100 (CET)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 5 Dec, jon@hackcraft.net wrote: >> *If* there are no language constraints, then spelling the month out is >> unambiguous whatever format (conventional US, EU, JP) you choose. (I realise >> that is a big if) > > Yes, I mustn't have been making myself clear when I said that you should use > the full month name if you can. > It's only when a client is stupid enough to insist on a short date (for reasons > I never understand but figure must have something to do with the physical size That, I would hope, is when you point out to said client that the system isn't going to be very userfriendly, that the size of the screen is an unknown factor, and that accessibility actually matters. After all, a demand for frames would not mean you used that without pointing out the accessibility implications ? > problem is though that the formats 03/04/1984, 04/03/1984, 03-04-1984 and 04-03- > 1984 simply don't work unless: Not, but the format "xx monthname year-with-four-digits" work in all contexts; written - of course - fully and in the same natural language as the document itself. If you then want to use the ISO format internally, fine. However, if you MUST use an abbreviated, locale-dependent, format towards the end user, then I still suggest dd-mm-yyyy - and, of course, always include that, as the OP had done. <label for="date">Date (in dd-mm-yyyy format)</label> <input type="text" name="date" id="date" size="16"> would be my suggestion. -- - Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/ [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 08:20:00 UTC