Ian Hickson wrote: > ... >> Michael(tm) Smith wrote: > ... >>> It seems pretty clear that there isn't anything else to refer to for >>> the date/time parsing rules -- but to me at least, specifying those >>> rules seems orthogonal to specifying the date/time syntax, and I would >>> think the syntax could just be defined by making reference to the >>> productions[1] in RFC 3339 (instead of completely redefining them), >>> while stating any exceptions. >>> >>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339#section-5.6 >>> >>> I think the exceptions might just amount to: >>> >>> - the literal letters T and Z must be uppercase >> Any technical reason why they have to? > > Not really. We just need a separator.
So why make it different from RFC 3339? >>> - a year must be four or more digits, and must be greater that zero >> "a year must be four or more digits" -- sounds like an alternative >> format that an additional RFC, updating RFC 3339 could specify. >> >> "must be greater that zero" -- that's not syntax :-) >> >> So yes, I think referring to RFC 3339, even if it's just a narrative >> mention, would be good. > > Why? Because it explains to readers how this is different. That is important because it's natural to look for existing libraries to parse date formats. >> Ian replied: >>> I don't understand what that would gain us. >> It would help people understand what the difference to RFC 3339 is. > > Why is that important or desirable? It seems that comparisons to other > specs would be better placed in other documents. HTML5 doesn't even > describe how it differs from its previous version (HTML4), why would it > include descriptions of differences from otherwise unrelated RFCs? See above. BR, Julian