This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
RE Re: RFE: Date Format
- To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Subject: RE DOCBOOK: Re: RFE: Date Format
- From: Vladimir Gutzko <e_aperta at everyday dot com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:27:33 +0100 (MET)
> / 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