[whatwg] <time>

[Jim O'Donnell]

Hi Robert
On 12 Mar 2009, at 02:53, Robert J Burns wrote:

> Since you keep repeating the following example (by copy and paste?)  
> I will mention that you have the year wrong in one place or the  
> other (1731 and 1732). Dates only diverge by years between Julian  
> and Gregorian many millions of years in the future or past or in BC  
> if using eras that insert a zero year into the calendar. Since  
> we're not even proposing the ability to change eras, we should  
> assume the same era for both calendars (in any event that only  
> applies to BCE/BC dates).

I used that example since it's the Julian date example used in the  
TEI docs for the <date> element. Happy to give other examples but  
that one seems to nicely demonstrate historical dates. Just one  
correction. 1 January was not adopted as the start of a new year  
until 1752. Hence Jan, Feb, Mar 1731 in the Julian Calendar are Jan,  
Feb, Mar 1732 in the calendar we use now (Gregorian).

On the issue of the calendar attribute, I suggested that as it's  
already present in TEI-encoded documents. TEI is in wide use by  
archives and libraries to digitise historical text and the calendar  
attribute is familiar to TEI authors. Obviously, the semantic info  
captured by TEI is lost when documents are transformed to HTML in  
order for publication online. I thought it would be useful to retain  
this semantic information in HTML but, as I also said, it isn't  
essential,

Regards
Jim

Jim O'Donnell
jim at eatyourgreens.org.uk
http://eatyourgreens.org.uk
http://flickr.com/photos/eatyourgreens
http://twitter.com/pekingspring




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090312/b76aa279/attachment-0002.htm>