[rfc-i] dates, was: Comments on draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-06
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 1 02:56:06 PDT 2014
On 2014-05-01 03:06, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> s2.16: I am still not sure where the specification of a "vague date"
> would be provided since hard and limited specifications are provided for
> day/month/year. Could it be the content text if none of day/month/year
> are provided (but illegal for the document itself)?
There are two cases (boilerplate and reference). The fixed format
applies to the boilerplate, the vague one to references.
> s2.16.2: I (still) don't see why the month can't be alternatively
> specified as a month number (possibly easier for non mother tongie
> authors). Your argument that this was a style issue doesn't seem to
> hold water, since the formatter can map from numbers just as easily if
> that is what the style requires.
It's this way in existing processors. We could extend it for v3, but I'm
not sure that introducing a second way to achieve the same thing is a win.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest