`time` element syntax

[David Chambers]

Michel Fortin <michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote:

I'd tend to go for something even simpler:



>        Some text 30 May 2011 more text.




       *[30 May 2011]: 2011-05-30 15:00 -07:00



> Basically, why do we need to force brackets in the text at all? Also, why

> force the writer to use 'T' as a time separator and strictly follow to the

> rules of HTML date syntax? It's much more readable without the 'T'.

> Reformatting it to HTML's liking should be pretty trivial.



I *love* this idea. I'm unfamiliar with PHP Markdown Extra's abbreviation
syntax (I'll read up on it); building upon an established convention sounds
very sensible to me.

Michel Fortin <michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote:


> The resemblance to links is actually a *good* thing in my opinion. It

> allows

> > readers to guess (correctly) that the there is accompanying data and that

> > it likely resides after the current paragraph or at the end of the

> document.




> I disagree. Someone reading the HTML output in the browser is unlikely to

> notice there's a date/time element here or there on the page with a

> computer-readable date. And even if you made date time elements flashing

> red, what would be the point?



I was referring to the resemblance to links in the Markdown itself. I agree
that the existence of a machine-readable version of a date is likely to be
of little interest to readers of the *rendered* document.

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

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.



I was unclear. I have no strong feelings as to `datetime:` versus `time:`.
What I like about the suggestion Waylan put forward is that it allows the
machine-readable timestamp to be placed at the end of the document, to avoid
having it interrupt sentence flow. Based on your response it appears that I
failed to draw to consider…

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

to be a placeholder for…

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

*or…*

    [two days ago][1]

    [1]: time:2011-05-30T15:00-07:00 "May 30th, if you care"

in which case I like this syntax also.

I am most enamoured with Michel's proposed bracket-free syntax. What do
others think of it?

David


On 5 June 2011 16:35, David Parsons <orc at pell.portland.or.us> wrote:


>

>

> 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

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Markdown-Discuss mailing list

> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20110605/0652e39c/attachment.htm>