[microformats-discuss] Microformat for timestamp of updated content

Robert Bachmann rbach at rbach.priv.at
Tue Aug 16 16:51:35 PDT 2005

Stephen Downes wrote:
> Bryan J Busch wrote:
>>> <p>
>>> Last update:
>>> <abbr class="page-last-modified" title="20050102">2 Jan 2005</abbr>
>>> </p>
> Hm.
> Shouldn't be 'page' because in many cases the item last modified is not
> necessarily stand-alone. I would just say 'last-modified'.

I'll write about this later.

> Also, looking at the various systems of designating dates online, a
> plain format such as '20050102' and '2 Jan 2005' is definitely
> non-standard. 

Althought '20050102' is allowed by ISO8601 the long form '2005-01-02'
is better because it's easier to read for humans.
Same for '20050102T170512Z' versus '2005-01-02T17:05:12Z'.

'2 Jan 2005' was just an example.
The date representation used between <abbr> and </abbr> is up to the
author and IMO out of the scope of this microformat.

Robert Bachmann <rbach at rbach.priv.at> (OpenPGP KeyID: 0x4A5CCF10)

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list