Brion Vibber wrote:
IIRC, the default is simply not to mess with the text, which is always the most sensible thing.
I see. Seems we have to stick then with the current level of messing with dates ;-)
Marking dates with <date> (or something) wouldn't be bad, IMHO.
Something like <date>2006-09-14</date> would be fine. Displayed as "14 September, 2006" on en "14. September 2006" on de with selectable overrides per logged-in user.
I agree that scanning wikitext for text that looks like dates might technically not be the best solution.
Also, having a date linked in order to get date display magic is against orthogonality of choices.
But I admit, I don't know the history behind the current date handling logic.
--Ligulem