[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE DOCBOOK: Re: RFE: Date Format
> / Vladimir Gutzko <e_aperta@everyday.com> was heard to say: > | Please be always aware that many DocBook docs are being translated > | and have to be maintained in several languages in parallel. Using > | ISO at least greatly facilitates this job. > > The issue that I'm having a hard time following is this: where do you > want automatic date translation? I rather don't want to touch dates in different formats when I have to maintain docs in parallel in several languages. I prefer to use the (perhaps clumsy) ISO format in all langauge versions and leave the proper presentation/translation if you like to the style sheet. > data, you probably want to use distinct elements for the parts of the > date, but in DocBook, dates only occur in metadata, bibliography > entries, > and revhistory. I completely agree, distinct elements for the parts of the date seem overkill to me - provided the date format used cannot be misinterpreted (and something like 03/02/01 certainly can). That's why I prefer ISO. > 3. In revhistory, maybe you'd like to do automatic format translation, > but > that strikes me as an edge case not worth the extra complexity of > requiring > authors to type > <date><year>2001</year><month>1</month><day>12</day></date>. > > Especially considering: > > a. The compound format is still going to be ambiguous if people type > <month>January</month>. > You're absolutely right. They could even put something like JAN or Jan. Best regards, Vladimir
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC