On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Jonathan Watt wrote: > > > > My recommendation would be to just use comma separation > > It would be the appropriate separator(s) for the locale in use, not > necessarily the comma, but I'm guessing that's what you meant.
Sure. > > for numbers greater than 9999. It doesn't help that much for > > four-digit numbers, and years beyond four digits often _do_ have > > commas, e.g.: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_10,000_problem > > > > I agree that it's a bit weird (though not particularly wrong) for > > four-digit years to have commas. > > Personally I think it's a bit more than a bit weird to have "Year: > 2,014". It seems pretty ugly to me, and four digit years are going to be > the common case. > > > type=number does seem appropriate for years, though. > > I wonder if it would be that bad to have a 'year' type to compliment the > 'month' and 'day' types... This has come up a few times, but so far the use cases have not been compelling enough. This is probably the most compelling use case, but even here, I don't know that it's that compelling. I would be interested in hearing more about the locales where not using separators even for four digits is bad/suboptimal. If it wasn't for those, I would say that just not using separators for four-digit numbers would be an easy and effective solution. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'