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 18543 - Historians would like to mark up dates before the year 0 as well. ISO 8601 supports negative dates. Why not HTML?
Summary: Historians would like to mark up dates before the year 0 as well. ISO 8601 su...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
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: 2012-08-13 06:43 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2012-10-12 18:26 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description contributor 2012-08-13 06:43:54 UTC
Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#valid-month-string
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#valid-month-string

Comment:
Historians would like to mark up dates before the year 0 as well. ISO 8601
supports negative dates. Why not HTML?

Posted from: 176.61.16.8
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_8) AppleWebKit/534.57.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1.7 Safari/534.57.2
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2012-10-12 18:08:34 UTC
It's a gregorian calendar. Dates before it was introduced (16th century) don't really make sense. We allow dates between year 1 and the 16th century because it's easier to allow them than disallow them, but negative years would require more support, so it's easier not to support them.

In practice, if you're referring to years that far back, it's much simpler not to use the Gregorian calendar (e.g. use the contemporary calendar of the era), and at that point, you're no longer using the HTML features anyway.
Comment 2 Gordon P. Hemsley 2012-10-12 18:26:58 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> It's a gregorian calendar. Dates before it was introduced (16th century)
> don't really make sense. We allow dates between year 1 and the 16th century
> because it's easier to allow them than disallow them, but negative years
> would require more support, so it's easier not to support them.
> 
> In practice, if you're referring to years that far back, it's much simpler
> not to use the Gregorian calendar (e.g. use the contemporary calendar of the
> era), and at that point, you're no longer using the HTML features anyway.

I disagree. BCE dates are almost always converted to (or interpreted natively as) Gregorian dates, because that is the calendar that was in widespread use when international standardization occurred. In fact, one could even argue that we don't actually use the Gregorian calendar anymore—we use the ISO 8601 calendar, which can represent all dates easily and in the same way.

While I can see why allowing all positive dates would be easier than only allowing dates from the 16th century onwards, I don't see why it would be too big of a burden to also allow negative dates. Surely ISO 8601 is specific enough to describe proper handling?

It doesn't make sense to me to force users of negative dates onto some non-standard (or quasi-standard) system "just because". Allowing negative ISO 8601 dates in the HTML would even allow for easier localized conversion into those contemporary calendars, should the need arise.

[FTR: I was not the anonymous contributor who filed this bug.]