On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Hugh Guiney <hugh.gui...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> However, the second one isn't quite an argument for expanding time. >> It's an outlining of, *if* we decide that we want <time> to be useful >> for *all* dates, how we should go about doing it. ppk recognizes that >> such an approach may not be what the spec wants. > > I realize that, but the fact that he was able to write that much on > the topic just strengthens the argument that <time> has far more use > cases than it's been allotted, and as such, its current definition > needs to be addressed, be it in that capacity or smaller.
Well, no, he had to write that much because historical dates are really quite messed up, and it's *very* non-trivial to represent them 'correctly'. That doesn't mean that <time> should really be that complex, just that *if* <time> wants to address those cases it'll need that level of complexity. ~TJ
