On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >
> > Due to a lot of people advocating usage of <br/> / <br /> in text/html
> > content it is more cost-effective to simply allow it -- given that it
> > works interoperably in "current" browsers -- than to try to change the
> > mindset of all those authors.
>
> Hm, I don't like this design principle, but it certainly is a design
> principle.
I like the design principle, but I don't much like the result in this
case (allowing />).
> Unrelated, the draft still says RFC 3066, you can update it to 4646, I'm
> confident that this will work.
Updated to BCP47.
> Why do you use MM/dd/yyyy in the LastModified date? It would be simpler
> to use one timestamp format everywhere, and allow historic US formats
> only for compatibility.
Agreed; unfortunately lastModified is set by backwards compatibility
concerns.
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> You mean the lastModified attribute of the Document object? That is
> because it was implemented that way before becoming part of a standard.
> Hopefully going forward such extensions are discussed earlier on so they
> can still be tweaked.
Indeed.
> Content relies on lastModified returning what it does. For new features,
> such as the various new input types related to dates in Web Forms 2.0
> and the <time> element we do try to unify them.
Indeed.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
