[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: date formats
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:32:49AM +0100, Stein Gjoen wrote:
> Sandy Harris wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html
>
> [a number of good points snipped...]
>
> 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?
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.
--
Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project dmerrill@lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
Finger me for my public key
You can do this in a number of ways. IBM chose to do all of them.
Why do you find that funny?
-- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org