[uf-dev] Human and machine readable data format
glenn.jones at madgex.com
Sun Jul 6 00:42:47 PDT 2008
Toby A Inkster wrote:
> A problem which hasn't been raised with regards to this proposal is
> that even though you are proposing a fixed date format, because it
> *looks* like natural language, authors will assume that it *is*
> natural language, and simply start including dates in whatever format
> they like. Then you get an NLP "arms race" between publishers and
> If you don't believe that that will happen, take a look at what
> happened with RFC 822 dates, which are simply a mess.
Very true the more you make the date look like natural language, the
less it looks like a fixed format.
I really don't want us to get involved in any form of NLP, it just would
not work. I think it was Mike who said that dates have to be parsed
correctly, no level of error is acceptable. I don't want to travel to an
event on the wrong day because a parser got the date wrong.
I had not come across the whole RFC 822 standard, you are right what a
mess. Dates do seem to be a recurring theme of pain for developers.
More information about the microformats-dev