[whatwg] Issues relating to the syntax of dates and times
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Nov 26 02:44:00 PST 2008
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Pentasis wrote:
> Like I said, I completely understand the issues here. It just seems a
> bit strange to me to choose one specific calendar and promote that one
> to "exact".
Well it's the calendar in use by a large part of the world. It's not just
any random calendar. :-)
> thereby not only limiting the use of the time-element in regard to *any*
> time/date but even within its own calendrical base (1582 as you
> correctly point out, but also to any leap-stuff that came after it).
Indeed, at some future point we'll have to add more (contemporary)
> in the end it is up to the author to use this element and I strongly
> suspect it will be misused and abused because of it's illogical
> limitations (this is no critisism, just an observation of the element
If it is misused, we will be able to use that information to design the
next version to address the cases that authors in fact need. So in a way,
that's all part of the natural evolution of the language. Indeed, <time>
itself was originally added because <abbr> was being abused in a similar
way (though almost exclusively for modern ISO8601 dates).
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg