- From: Martin J. Dürst <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:59:40 +0100 (MET)
- To: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
- cc: Michael Everson <everson@indigo.ie>, www-international <www-international@w3.org>
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Martin Bryan wrote: > Michael Everson wrote: > >Ar 18:16 +0100 1997-10-20, scríobh Martin J. Dürst: > > >>So for dates on the web, > >>always use something like February 3, 2004. > > >How about encouraging the use of ISO standards, and use 2004-02-03? :-) > > Better still conform to the subset of 8601 laid down by W3C for use on the > Internet in their recently published note on Date and Time Formats. (OK this > is the same thing in this case, but we need to publicise the fact that there > are Internet rules a bit better) Well, I think it is important here to distinguish computer-readable dates and dates in running text. My proposal was for dates in running text, in the middle of a web page. In that case, I would strongly advise against 2004-02-03; it just looks very ugly. Of course, in all kinds of structured formats, ISO 8601, or a suitable subset such as that defined in the W3C note (+leap seconds, as recently discovered and supposedly not supported by ISO 8601), is the best selection. Regards, Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 1997 06:02:16 UTC