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

Bryan J Busch bryanjbusch at gmail.com
Wed Aug 17 12:15:52 PDT 2005

> Although '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.

If the date representation is left out of the standard, then are we
talking something like:

<abbr class="last-modified" title="[unknown date/time
format]">[unknown date/time format]</abbr>

Does that add unnecessary burden on future parsers? Not suggesting, just asking.

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list