`time` element syntax

[David Parsons]

So, you like:


> Waylan Limberg <waylan at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> That said, I'm going to ignore the 'looks like a link' issue for a  

> moment and add that I think I would prefer something like a  

> reference syntax with a datetime label:

>    Some text [30 May 2011] more text.

>    [30 May 2011]: datetime: 2011-05-30T15:00-07:00

>

> Heck, Waylan, you've done it again. This is extremely readable and  

> allows the `pubdate` attribute to be included if desired.


But you don't like:


> David Parsons <orc at pell.portland.or.us> wrote:

>

>     That looks like it would be a good place for a pseudo-protocol:

>    [two days ago](time:2011-05-30T15:00-07:00 "May 30th, if you care")

>     This would have the advantage of being fairly unambiguous,  

> instead of superimposing a magic time string over the existing  

> linkyformat.

>

> This is definitely less ambiguous, but causes the sentence's flow to  

> be interrupted.



     These are *exactly* the same thing, except for the
trivial difference of using `datetime:` vs `time:` as
the name for the pseudo-protocol.   I fail to see how
using `time:` interrupts the sentence flow when
`datetime:` does not.


    -david parsons