- From: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 10:58:35 +0300
- To: www-html@w3.org
- CC: James Brown <james@dreambreed.com>
James Brown / 2003-06-03 02:42: > [Appologies for the < and > values in my previous post- I > should have guess the W3 would have used <pre>!. The corrected > text should read as below.] <pre>?? Email is always text/plain. :) > Thank you for your comments. I agree that the tags would > definately have to specify the type of date contained in the date > field. That was kind of what I was trying to acheive by the > format="us" or format="uk" attribute, but this is my first > attempt at documenting an idea for the W3C so I'm sure I didn't > express it properly! > > I was thinking along the lines of: > > <date format="us">05/07/03</date> - which the browser would > interpret as 7th of May 2003, or: > > <date format="uk">05/07/03</date> - which the browser would > interpret as 5th of July 2003. > > <date format="zh">05/07/03</date> - which the browser would > interpret as 3rd of July 2005 (Chinese format) What's the problem with <html xml:lang="fi"> ... <date time="2002-11-19T13:24:38+02:00">13:25 19.11.2002</date> ... instead? The point is, we already have ISO-8601 and there's no point inventing new systems. If you want different *rendering* CSS is right tool for it. ISO-8601 is already *official* format in many (all?) European countries and AFAIK, USA has already agreed (at some level) to use this format, too. Unfortunately, not many know about the fact. For example, ISO-8601 is the official time format here in Finland too, but when I use it here, people look puzzled as the old format of dd.mm.yyyy looks much more familiar to them. See also: http://www.qsl.net/g1smd/isoimp.htm http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2002Nov/0113.html -- Mikko
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2003 03:58:42 UTC