[rfc-i] date formats, Re: Few nits in draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-07
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 8 10:58:40 PDT 2014
On 2014-05-08 18:50, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> Julian said...
>>>>> s2.17 (and subsections) <date>: I am not convinced by the idea of
>>>>> having alternative free-format options for month and year attributes.
>>>> This is nothing new; it's the same thing in RFC2629 and v2.
>>> Hmm. That appears to be a piece of undocumented functionality
>>> in/post-facto rationalisation of the existing tools. Personally I
>>> hadn't grocked that the <date> attributes weren't type checked in
>>> References (only, presumably). The older documents imply day/year
>>> numbers and month names are what is expected.
>> RFC 2629 is very incomplete.
> Indeed - and Marshall's updated FAQ document duplicates it for <date>
>> The V2 draft attempts to describe the vocabulary as it is implemented
>> *and* used, and vague dates *are* used in practice (like it or not).
> Probably - although I can't produce an example off the cuff.
> I'd be willing to go for a bit of clean up here in v3. The rfcedstyle
> and strict mode could handle the cleaner solution.
What would be the "cleaner" solution? What advantage does it have?
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest