Re: date formats

[David Merrill <dmerrill@lupercalia.net>]

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