[whatwg] Type Date

Garrett Smith dhtmlkitchen at gmail.com
Thu May 6 19:58:08 PDT 2010

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:52:15 +0900, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> Disregard that: Proleptic Gregorian is not required, but optional for
>> ISO 8601. Regardless:-
>>> That specification in this case is HTML 5 draft. Opera's
>>> implementation of input type="date", should not, without good reason,
>>> deviate from what is specified in the draft.
>> Still stands.
> HTML5 makes no UI requirements. I agree we could (and definitely should in
> due course) improve our UI, but there is nothing in specification land that
> forces us too as far as I can tell.
I'm not sure how suitable this is for on-list, but I some may find it
of value...

U/X and usability issues aside, The date format and range is specified
in HTML5 and cited from rfc3339.

HTML 5[1] specifies:

| # a date-fullyear is defined as four or more digits
| representing a number greater than 0

I read that as "0000" to "9999". Is there a different interpretation of that?

HTML 5 cites RFC3339[2], which mentions proleptic greg dates, e.g.

| All dates and times are assumed to be in the "current era",
|      somewhere between 0000AD and 9999AD.

Nice to see native support of that control taking hold. I like to be
able to use websites when I need to but most calendars (and websites,
for that matter) fall somewhere in quality between awful and totally
broken. Take a look at any travel site. Those among the most popular
of travel sites are aware of four browsers (if your're lucky), fail
with js disabled, throw script errors when enabled, use (m)m/(d)d/yyyy
(or worse: yy). This sort of garbage will not stop, not so long as
these stupid and harmful trends in web development continue.

[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339

More information about the whatwg mailing list