`time` element syntax
orc at pell.portland.or.us
Sun Jun 5 19:35:02 EDT 2011
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
> 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.
More information about the Markdown-Discuss