<html><body> <tt>microformats-dev-bounces@microformats.org wrote on 05/23/2008 04:18:27 AM: > Examples of date formats I think are OK > > 2008-01-21 > 20080121 > 2007-05-01T11:30 > 2007-05-01 11:30 > 20070501 11:30</tt> <tt>I thought the T was required?</tt> <tt> > 20070501T1130 > 2007-05-01T11:30:15 > 20070501T113015 > 2007-05-01T11:30Z-08:00</tt> <tt>Definitely invalid - Z and offset are mutually exclusive</tt> <tt> > 2007-05-01T11:30-08:00 > 2007-05-01T11:30+08:00 > 2007-05-01T11:30Z08:00 > 20070501T1130Z-0800 > 2007-05-01T11:30Z</tt> <tt>Definitely invalid - Z and offset are mutually exclusive</tt> <tt> > 2007-05 > 07-05-01 (equals 2007-05-01) > 070501  (equals 2007-05-01)</tt> <tt>I sincerely hope noone would ever actually do anything like this. I'm not going to handle it in Operator.</tt> <tt>I can't believe they even allow this. It's a specification. So they can say "Always have the year"</tt> <tt>I hate ambiguity in dates and I hate parsing ISO dates.</tt> <tt>> The last one is interesting > <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601</a> ... > "Although the standard allows both the YYYY-MM-DD and YYYYMMDD formats > for complete calendar date representations, if the day [DD] is omitted > then only the YYYY-MM format is allowed. By disallowing dates of the > form YYYYMM, the standard avoids confusion with the truncated > representation YYMMDD (still often used)." </tt> <tt>Mike Kaply</tt></body></html>