Michel Fortin <[email protected]> wrote:
I'd tend to go for something even simpler:
> Some text 30 May 2011 more text.
*[30 May 2011]: 2011-05-30 15:00 -07:00
> Basically, why do we need to force brackets in the text at all? Also, why
> force the writer to use 'T' as a time separator and strictly follow to the
> rules of HTML date syntax? It's much more readable without the 'T'.
> Reformatting it to HTML's liking should be pretty trivial.
I *love* this idea. I'm unfamiliar with PHP Markdown Extra's abbreviation
syntax (I'll read up on it); building upon an established convention sounds
very sensible to me.
Michel Fortin <[email protected]> wrote:
> The resemblance to links is actually a *good* thing in my opinion. It
> allows
> > readers to guess (correctly) that the there is accompanying data and that
> > it likely resides after the current paragraph or at the end of the
> document.
> I disagree. Someone reading the HTML output in the browser is unlikely to
> notice there's a date/time element here or there on the page with a
> computer-readable date. And even if you made date time elements flashing
> red, what would be the point?
I was referring to the resemblance to links in the Markdown itself. I agree
that the existence of a machine-readable version of a date is likely to be
of little interest to readers of the *rendered* document.
David Parsons <[email protected]> wrote:
These are *exactly* the same thing, except for the trivial difference of
> using `datetime:` vs `time:` as the name for the pseudo-protocol. I fail
> to see how using `time:` interrupts the sentence flow when `datetime:` does
> not.
I was unclear. I have no strong feelings as to `datetime:` versus `time:`.
What I like about the suggestion Waylan put forward is that it allows the
machine-readable timestamp to be placed at the end of the document, to avoid
having it interrupt sentence flow. Based on your response it appears that I
failed to draw to consider…
[two days ago](time:2011-05-30T15:00-07:00 "May 30th, if you care")
to be a placeholder for…
[two days ago](time:2011-05-30T15:00-07:00 "May 30th, if you care")
*or…*
[two days ago][1]
[1]: time:2011-05-30T15:00-07:00 "May 30th, if you care"
in which case I like this syntax also.
I am most enamoured with Michel's proposed bracket-free syntax. What do
others think of it?
David
On 5 June 2011 16:35, David Parsons <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> So, you like:
>
>
> Waylan Limberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> That said, I'm going to ignore the 'looks like a link' issue for a moment
>> and add that I think I would prefer something like a reference syntax with a
>> datetime label:
>> Some text [30 May 2011] more text.
>> [30 May 2011]: datetime: 2011-05-30T15:00-07:00
>>
>> Heck, Waylan, you've done it again. This is extremely readable and allows
>> the `pubdate` attribute to be included if desired.
>>
>
> But you don't like:
>
>
> David Parsons <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> That looks like it would be a good place for a pseudo-protocol:
>> [two days ago](time:2011-05-30T15:00-07:00 "May 30th, if you care")
>> This would have the advantage of being fairly unambiguous, instead of
>> superimposing a magic time string over the existing linkyformat.
>>
>> This is definitely less ambiguous, but causes the sentence's flow to be
>> interrupted.
>>
>
>
> These are *exactly* the same thing, except for the
> trivial difference of using `datetime:` vs `time:` as
> the name for the pseudo-protocol. I fail to see how
> using `time:` interrupts the sentence flow when
> `datetime:` does not.
>
>
> -david parsons
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Markdown-Discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
