[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: date formats

David Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:32:49AM +0100, Stein Gjoen wrote:

> > Since SGML is supposed to help authors follow a strict grammar, why not
> > use it to the fullest here? How about something like this:
> > <date>
> >  <year>2000</year>
> >  <month>12</month>
> >  <date>11</date>
> > </date>
> >
> > or
> >
> > <date>
> >  <year>2000</year>
> >  <week>49</week>
> > </date>
> >
> > If you are used to SGML the added verbosity should not be a problem.
> > This then also simplifies date reformatting into style used in other
> > countries.
> Are you talking docbook or linuxdoc here?

I was thinking of both.

> Either way, it seems to me that using ISO dates (YYYY-MM-DD)
> accomplishes the same thing with less complexity. If we were just now
> designing db, I *might* agree with you. But there has to be a pretty
> clear benefit to making a change of this type to an existing standard,
> and I don't see one.

It would seem to me that verifying correct date format with sgmlcheck
or equivalent is simpler the way I suggested it. Also it forces the
author to keep the problem in mind while converters can format using
locale settings to a more familiar formats for reading.

Time/date can be presented in a number of ways and stated with a
great range of precision. Having lived in countries that present
dates as MM-DD-YYYY, DD-MM-YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD I can see the
benefits of forcing the author here.

Trivia2: in Japan year is occationally stated as the year of the
emperor's reign.
</date> (Am I Close??)

Trivia2b: I have heard that in England some kind of legal documents
are dated by the year of the regent.
 <regent type="Queen" issue="II">Elisabeth</regent>
</date> (Definitely not quite correct here)

Well, that is enough merriment from me on a Monday morning.

   Stein Gjoen

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org