I'm fine with that. So long as they really do read the best ideas and don't just go with whatever is trending on Twitter.
Also, I hope they don't go with the idea that all the past stories happened. They should just pick the most important ones that they want to define the DCU, and leave the rest to the reader's discretion.
Personally I would have done the timeline differently by not having any years listed (unless we're talking about the JSA) and simply go by sequence of events. That leaves room for interpretation and you don't lock yourself down too much in the age question. Grated when you add stuff like the birth of characters such as Damian Wayne or Jon Kent it sets up a marker, but for the most part this is where we have to invoke the suspension of disbelief if we're going to have an ongoing "forever young" shared universe that works.
For the JSA there are a number of ways they can be put into stasis somewhere in between their disappearance during the HUAC and a reappearance in the modern age.
Here's an example of how this might work for the early post-Crisis years (using the post-Crisis continuity). Each column begins with the event shown in the top column with everything else coming in between that event and the next event. (Only Batman and Superman done in this example)
Yeah, I agree with you that what happened, and the order in which events happened, are more important than the exact passage of time - as long as the vague passage of time alluded to is passable in terms of suspension of disbelief.
The New 52 really failed in that regard, with Batman having four Robins in a 5 year span - one of whom was his 10 year old son who would have been conceived within said 5 year span!
Dan DiDio talked about the timeline in the latest episode of DC Daily (start at the 7 minute mark): https://roosterteeth.com/watch/dc-daily-october-22-2019
Interesting.
So basically, its still a work in progress but once it comes out its supposed to be 'absolute' and the base for all future stories moving forward.
He's clearly conscious of the fact that having a rigid timeline itself presents a lot of problems, particularly in terms of 'dating' stories. Makes me wonder to what extent the 'hard dates' in the NYCC timeline will remain in the final version.
Reliving my second childhood.... Making my TPB's take a back seat.....I'm now a new DC Omnibus and Hard Bound Book Collector: Batman: The Golden Age Omni V1 / Legends of the Dark Knight: Jim Aparo Vol. 2 / Gotham Central Omni / Justice League of America Silver Age Omni's V1 & V2 / Superman: The Golden Age Omni V1/ Green Lantern Omni V1
with many more purchases soon to come.....
*sees charts and graphs, eyes glaze over. Waits for good stories*
“To the future or to the past. To a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone - to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: from the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink - greetings!" - Winston Smith
You have to be really careful when you use the word "absolute" .
I think he was talking more in terms of past continuity than anything else.
While I doubt continuity will ever be stable at DC, I'm guessing that the failed New 52 experiment proves that in general the way forward for DC is acknowledging their past, and reboots that erase iconic characters and stories will ultimately be damaging to the brand.
The idea behind this is that everything in a row happens following the event seen at the top of the row and before the event seen at the top of the next. The Supergirl saga (which I named that way because that was what it was called in the books) happened just before Invasion! so putting it in the row under Invasion would be wrong. I do see a point of distinguishing it from the Zor-El Supergirl who came later though.