• From: "Michael Kay" <M.H.Kay@e...>
• To: "XML Dev" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 18:14:35 -0000

> > I assume that date formats have even more variations than
> > numbers, at least until there is agreement on a stardate!
>
> Actually ISO 8601 is slowly gaining on its competitors, and has a
> good chance of winning.

Except among astronomers, who have used "stardates" for years, or more
correctly Julian Day Numbers, i.e. the number of days since 1 Jan 4713 BC.

Mike Kay on stardate 2451152


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • Re: Why XML data typing is hard
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why XML data typing is hard
• Next by Date: Re: Persistent identifiers (was SAX and delayed entity loading)
• Previous by thread: Re: Why XML data typing is hard
• Next by thread: Re: Why XML data typing is hard
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread