[rfc-i] dates, was: Comments on draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-06
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri May 2 06:30:19 PDT 2014
On 5/1/14, 5:56 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.
I'm not sure I see the value in adding support for numbers to represent
months, requiring the processor to convert the numbers to names. If a
particular author is coming from a region that uses the Gregorian
calendar but has different names for the months, that's one of the
easier things to translate (and they're having to write in English for
the document in any case). If a particular author is coming from a
region that does not use the Gregorian calendar, then I imagine both
names and numbers will require an equal amount of additional thought.
More information about the rfc-interest