On 9/17/06, Ligulem ligulem@pobox.com wrote:
sake of syntax (ad-hoc rule: "No syntactic sugar templates"? ;-), which in this case I feel is a suboptimal idea as there aren't any editorial display format decisions to isolate (There is no "moving target" about the question how to display a date from an editorial viewpoint. There are just culture/language dependent display formats to choose from.)
How so? I'm not really sure why I seem to keep being told that my preferred date format is "9 July 2004". Personally, "9th of July, 2004" would be better. Nor am I convinced that editorial judgment never comes into this. In some fields perhaps it makes sense to use condensed dates like 2004-7-9, while in others, more verbose formates are preferred? Similarly, it would be nice to have dates in some places not show the year (ie, "on July the 9th that year...") while linking or not linking as preferred..
So the editorial target isn't moving a long way, but it's not necessarily a sitting duck either ;)
Steve