[microformats-discuss] re: Microformat for timestamp of updated content

[Ryan King]

On Aug 16, 2005, at 2:55 PM, brian suda wrote:

> If you look at the W3C note about date time
> http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime
> and information about the iCal/hCal date time stamps, you will notice
> that a full UTC date time stamp is valid, so it would look something
> like the following:
>
> <abbr title="20050816T170200Z">5:02 p.m. EDT (21:02 GMT), August 16,
> 2005</abbr>

Should be:

<abbr title="20050816T210200Z">5:02 p.m. EDT (21:02 GMT), August 16,  
2005</abbr>

-ryan

> Here is the Wiki page about datetime formats
> http://microformats.org/wiki/datetime-design-pattern
>
> There was some older discussion on this list about the ISO time stamp
> and acceptable formats for hCalendar.
>
> -brian
>
> Bryan J Busch wrote:
>
>
>> From: Robert Bachmann <rbach at rbach.priv.at>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> <p>
>>> Last update:
>>> <abbr class="page-last-modified" title="20050102">2 Jan 2005</abbr>
>>> </p>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I like the way this one is shaping up. Can I assume at this point  
>> that
>> we've gotten rid of the surrounding tags and are going with just the
>> <abbr ... </abbr> piece? That would certainly make it more micro.
>>
>> One addition: can we add the time, as well? That way, CNN (for
>> example) could use our microformat on its home page when displaying
>> something like:
>>
>> Updated: 5:02 p.m. EDT (21:02 GMT), August 16, 2005
>> _______________________________________________
>> microformats-discuss mailing list
>> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
>> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>