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

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Wed Aug 17 12:37:19 PDT 2005

On 8/17/05 12:15 PM, "Bryan J Busch" <bryanjbusch at gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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>

Not quite.  He literally meant *between* <abbr> and </abbr>, e.g. in your

<abbr class="last-modified" title="[ISO8601 datetime]">
  [unknown date/time format]

And the inside, far from being "unknown" is whatever the content
author/publisher chooses is appropriate for their site, audience, language,
locality etc. etc.

We've been leaning towards restricting the set of ISO8601 datetime used by
hCalendar to that documented in the W3C datetime note.  Joe's implied
suggestion to use RFC3339 is something we should consider.



More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list