I was not likely there when you decided.
I notice your spec part of the doc uses ISO 8601 but your examples have slashes.
The publication or general availability (GA) date, entered as YYYY-MM-DD, where YYYY is the year, MM is the month from 01 to 12, and DD is the day from 01-31.
But I suggest we adopt 8601 which is also the XML Schema standard:
As well, I would recommend that some examples specify the timezone – content is not widely exchangeable otherwise. I recommend using GMT for all dates but some users may
need to specify offsets. Offsets take the form of, for example, -07:00 for San Franciso time. “Z” is a nice short form for GMT
Using just dates with no time can work for some people.
The interpretation of a date is soft it does not refer to any particular time and could be days off for some folks without a timezone.
I recall a topic on recommending the use of ISO conventions for textual markup in lieu of datatyped enforcement. Darned if I can find it now. However, our early documentation for date-dependent attributes seems
to rely on that presumed convention. For example, see the attribute descriptions for @modified, @golive, and @expiry in the <revised> element from the 1.0 spec:
The closest to any domain that might be worth using as a model would be the bookchangehistory element's content (ie, <reviewed> or <approved>):
In general, the bookmeta designs for structured data tend to be over-prescriptive for authoring in a regular XML editor that lacks form-based affordances for such constructs. On the other hand, the template-based or guideline-based input from 1.0 days was not
always localization friendly or verifiable. Fun.
I'm not sure if these were the same background you recall.
On 8/21/2013 2:50 PM, Eliot Kimber wrote:
I dimly recall some discussion in the past of generic markup for dates and
times, but I don't remember the details, other than nobody proposed a
generic date and time markup domain.
Unfortunately, it's not possible to search usefully on keywords like the
"date" and "time" and "markup" so my attempt to search the mail archives was
Does anyone have any memory of this discussion?
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"