[whatwg] Re: several messages

Matthew Raymond mattraymond at earthlink.net
Fri Jan 28 11:35:10 PST 2005

Max Romantschuk wrote:
>>Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>Supporting ISO8601 is pretty easy. It's one of the simplest date/time 
>>>formats to parse.
> Matthew Raymond wrote:
>>   It still means that the webmaster has to alter all server-side 
>>scripting involving dates/times. What happens when you hired an outside 
>>group to setup those scripts, but your HTML is in-house?
> There is no way we can accomplish new things without any growing pains. 
> It's a far better tradeoff to force people to modify some scripts than 
> complicate the model with client-driven formatting.

    The client-side formatting is optional, it's easy to implement, and 
if it doesn't support a certain format, then the worst that happens is 
they have to change the server scripts anyway.

> Sticking to one date format makes the server side bits much simpler 
> overall, and also eliminates possible ambiguation issues with the 
> submitted format being misconfigured in the form.

    Since ISO8601 is still the default, they still have that option.

> If we wanted everything to work for everyone without the need for 
> changes we should still be coding table-based, CSS-free layouts for NS4.

    Properly written HTML, even for WF2, will still be readable/usable 
on NS4, so what's your point? New features need not mean destroying 
existing infrastructure.

> PS. I do find your proposal attractive, but I still feel it wouln't be 
> worth it.

    My proposal for <date> still works without the client-side 
formatting markup:

| <date value="2005-01-30" name="date">
|   <input value="2005-01-30" name="date">
| </date>

    Unfortunately, this dumps the support for three legacy <select> 

More information about the whatwg mailing list