On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Andy Mabbett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Sat, August 7, 2010 01:58, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Andy Mabbett <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Hi folks,
>>> On the WHATWG (HTML5 working group) wiki, to which I referred earlier, I
>>> have just sketched a tentative proposal for a "certainty" attribute for
>>> the new TIME element:
>>> This will allow for "circa" "flourished" and otherwise vague or "fuzzy"
>>> dates, as desired by EDTF.
>>> Comments and suggestions for improvements would be welcome, here or
>> While I definitely think the use case is important, I'm of the very
>> strong opinion that an extended data-time format ought to be
>> self-contained, and so not rely on format-specific extensions like
>> X/HTML attributes. One ought to be able to use the same representation
>> in an HTML attribute, or a JSON or RDF value, and losslessly convert
>> among them.
>> For that reason, I very much prefer the current draft idea in EDTF of
>> doing "2000?" or "2000~".
> Thank you. I agree that interoperability and standardisation of vocabulary
> (not least for the convenience of publishers) are both important. I'm not
> precious about the model I prosped, it's more of a satlking horse than
> Would you care to reiterate your point in the WHATWG wiki, or shall I
> (additional voices will lend weight)?
Could you please do that? Feel free to use my name, and to include a
link to my message if you like (I understand the archive is now