This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 17642 - This should be explicit that this means the ISO 8601 week number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Week_dates
Summary: This should be explicit that this means the ISO 8601 week number. http://en....
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-06-28 19:22 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2012-09-12 00:18 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2012-06-28 19:22:30 UTC 
Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/common-microsyntaxes.html
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#weeks
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#weeks

Comment:
This should be explicit that this means the ISO 8601 week number. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Week_dates

Posted from: 67.180.233.222
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/536.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/19.0.1084.52 Safari/536.5
Comment 1 contributor 2012-07-18 17:54:19 UTC 
This bug was cloned to create bug 18269 as part of operation convergence.
Comment 2 contributor 2012-09-12 00:17:49 UTC 
Checked in as WHATWG revision r7334.
Check-in comment: Mention ISO 8601 in the 'week' section. This is a note, since it's non-normative but the statement could be confused as normative if it wasn't made a note. Also, it's qualified, because I'm not sure it's 100% true for dates before the introduction of the Gregorian calendar (it's proleptic, but I can't find any evidence that ISO8601's weeks are too, and wikipedia says ISO8601 isn't proleptic in general unless you have prior agreement as we do here). Also, it's different from the recent edit to the W3C spec for the same issue because the W3C one breaks the editorial convention used in this spec that avoids having references in sentences. Wow that's a long checkin comment for such a minor issue.
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7333&to=7334