LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  August 2010

DATETIME August 2010

Subject:

Re: Proposed 'certainty' attribute for date-time in HTML5

From:

Bruce D'Arcus <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:48:05 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (44 lines)

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]>
>> wrote:
>>> 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:
>>>
>>>   http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Time_element#Fuzzy_dates
>>>
>>> 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
>>> there.
>>
>> 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~".
>
> Bruce,
>
> 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
> anything.
>
> 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
public).

Bruce

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager