Re: HTML has, probably, confusing date format

[Christian Wolfgang Hujer wrote:] ---------------
> And how am I supposed to *easily* compare Jan / Feb / Mar for sorting? The required hash is too much complication compared to the ease of current datetime comparison.

At a first glance, I had nearly agreed deciding that I had missed the
other side of the coin again. But then... If the goal is simplifying
sorting dates then there is more easy way of a date performing, by a 36
bits integer of seconds from birthday of Christ till a datetime. E. g.
31st of December in the year 2000 at 24:00:00 of old good GMT = 63 115
200 000 + 0 (binary: 1110 1011 0001 1111 0101 1000 0110 0000 0000). (I
don't know why but I don't want this format to be chosen. Do you?)

[Christian Wolfgang Hujer wrote:] ---------------
> And if you say Jan / Feb / Mar others will come and demand localized names for internationalization.

(For sure, they will come and demand localization and maybe even more.
I, probably, know such ones. (O tempora, o mores!) Besides, there is so
many different things already localized that to localize just 12 months
... I am trying to kid.) How many times do others demand to localize,
for example, an old good GMT abbreviation or a name of color attribute
or another HTML's attribute name or attribute value?

[Christian Wolfgang Hujer wrote:] ---------------
> Anyway there are only two html elements using an attribute of type Datetime: <ins/> and <del/>.

Not only <ins> and <del> but also <meta ... />
( ). And, thanks
to this format, the trend, the practice of presenting month information
by digits, may be widely deployed in the future what I consider as a
main defect of this date format.

And as a final note, look at the domain addresses of this list. How have
a month information been presented there?

Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 19:50:09 UTC