Smylers at stripey.com
Mon Mar 9 14:55:32 PDT 2009
Tom Duhamel writes:
> My opinion is that all the following dates are precise:
> The later is more precise, but the three are all precise in my
Being precise means having a small granularity. Obviously that's
subjective, but in many cases granularity of a year would be deemed
> There are numerous reason to use dates which are not very precise, but are
> still precise nevertheless. I'm going to release the new version of my
> current project in <time datetime="2009-04">April</time> but I cannot tell
> as of now the exact day of the release.
Indeed, that's a reason to use an imprecise date in that paragraph of
text. But it isn't apparently why that date needs to be marked up as
such; what consumers of the above HTML would do something useful with
> On the other hand, those are NOT precise dates:
> Last year
> About a month ago
That's considerably more precise than "2009", in that it bounds a much
smaller period of time than a whole year. But I don't see how any of
this is revelant; the date support that HTML 5 needs is that which is
generally useful, not something that happens to meet either your or my
definitions of particular terms.
> From my understanding of the current draft, the earlier date that can
> be used is 1970-01-01.
I think you're mistaken. The <time> definition requires a valid date or
The date component of which must be a valid date string:
Which must start with a valid month string:
Which has the constraint year > 0.
More information about the whatwg