Print

Print


Hi John Hostage,

 

Thanks. This is now corrected
https://www.softmake.com.au/source-code-purified-edtf/#level1-letter-prefixe
d-calendar-year (and in source-code-purified-edtf.zip).

 

... In Ray's (official) version that date was "2/4/2018". In attempting to
correct Ray's date, by changing it to a non-ironic format, I feel victim to
Muphry's Law. That is, I missed that Ray's year was wrongly 2018. Good of
you to pick up on it.

 

Joy,

John Bentley

 

From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
<[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Hostage, John
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2019 00:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Source code purified EDTF.

 

John,

 

In the line where it says "Note: an error in example 2 was corrected
2018-02-04. Changed from '-Y170000002' to 'Y-170000002'" should the date be
2019-02-04?

 

John Hostage

 

 

  _____  

From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
<[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > on behalf of
John Bentley <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 02:05
To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
Subject: Source code purified EDTF. 

 

Hi John Hostage,

 

We've taken your suggestion to drop pursuit of identifying where the small
confusion lay. 

 

Hi Ray,

 

The most important pending matter remains my post/email of "Thu, 6 Dec 2018
11:06:53 +1100" https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1812
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__listserv.loc.gov_cgi-2
Dbin_wa-3FA2-3Dind1812-26L-3DDATETIME-26X-3D908B8D6B4EF32A71AB-26P-3D61&d=Dw
MFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=O9-UIVab7e9YxpBphmOmeEQruoCpRWXNPKDBg9tfb88&
m=QlSk7UEUh_SNw5XBw0GvtivvSTowZs1g-mWrmYkbOw8&s=ieVQk7f1AMOZ-5wIaoSLbuF4S6d_
_-WrNvdpdvSezXI&e=> &L=DATETIME&X=908B8D6B4EF32A71AB&P=61 . You've responded
to the first part (again with thanks). However, that post requires
understanding as a whole. Particularly since my (main) suggestions come in
the second half.

 

However as a separate matter I've created a "source code purified EDTF"
version of the official. "Source code purified" means, in short, that
various white space hacks in the official source code were replaced with
semantically clean markup and supporting CSS. This is at
https://www.softmake.com.au/source-code-purified-edtf/
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.softmake.com.au_so
urce-2Dcode-2Dpurified-2Dedtf_&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=O9-UIVab7
e9YxpBphmOmeEQruoCpRWXNPKDBg9tfb88&m=QlSk7UEUh_SNw5XBw0GvtivvSTowZs1g-mWrmYk
bOw8&s=SkLBS1NStwlOp43eOGTB357Ry7L1maHW9ieAMcMiV5E&e=> .

 

Would you have an interest in using this? If so go ahead and download it and
use it at will, with whatever modifications you see fit. 

 

I intend this to be up only temporarily (and have prevented google from
indexing it) ... until you make a decision about it.

 

My main motive for coding this was a private one: to cement my recent
learning of CSS flexbox techniques; and to see if I could apply this as a
substitute for your nbsp white space hacks. And indeed that turned out well.
As you can see the finished result has the several stated (once you follow
the link) advantages.

 

On the other hand your old school coding (a school I was recently a member
of) does the job adequately. The main disadvantage, that it is not
(optimized to be) viewable on mobile (and screens of any size), is not too
significant given I don't think there's a pressing need for viewing
standards on the run (??). And it doesn't look too bad on mobile anyway. In
addition your own code is something you are totally familiar with and might
be more readily maintainable in that sense (although there's a sense in
which my markup is more generally maintainable given it is "cleaner").

 

Anyway, I won't feel slighted and I don't think it necessarily a bad choice
if you were to decide to stick to your own code base. By "code"/"coding" I
mostly mean XHTML markup and CSS stuff.

 

No doubt you've been impacted by, and continue to be impacted by, the
government lockdown. Commiserations on that.

 

Joy,

John Bentley