----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Hickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentasis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Issues relating to the syntax of dates and times
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Pentasis wrote:
"The primary use cases for these elements are for marking up publication
dates e.g. in blog entries, and for marking event dates in hCalendar
markup. Thus the DOM APIs are likely to be used as ways to generate
interactive calendar widgets or some such."
I agree with this, so disregard my previous remarks on this subject. I
would however recommend dropping the word "primary".
I wouldn't want to make people think their particular use case was
excluded. What if someone wanted to use a date to indicate the time an
entry was added, for instance? Hence the word "primary".
That whole paragraph might be rewritten in due course though to not refer
to use cases (I try to keep the spec clear of actually using the term
explicitly and instead just show the use cases in examples).
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
This confuses me again ;-) Sorry. Are you saying that examples and
use-cases will be excluded from the spec? If so, than I disagree with it
again. Like I stated before, I understand that times/dates are never *exact*
(esp. very old ones). So either this element should get a limited use-case
(like blog entries, calendar dates for meetings etc.) or should be able to
handle all time/date use-cases (even fictional ones). Either way, this
should be explicitly defined or excluded in the spec. shouldn't it?
Bert
