[microformats-discuss] re: Microformat for timestamp of updated
joe.gregorio at gmail.com
Wed Aug 17 18:45:21 PDT 2005
RFC 3339 is, as Ted pointed out, a subset of ISO 8601.
But I think it's important to realize how varied ISO 8601
dates can be.
The following are all valid ISO 8601 dates:
Care to guess what that last one represents?
OTOH, RFC 3339 is strict, only the following forms are allowed
On 8/17/05, Ryan King <ryan at technorati.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> > Not quite. He literally meant *between* <abbr> and </abbr>, e.g.
> > in your
> > words:
> > <abbr class="last-modified" title="[ISO8601 datetime]">
> > [unknown date/time format]
> > </abbr>
> > 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.
> Its not clear to me how RFC 3339 differs from ISO 8601. Can anyone
> summarize the differences?
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
More information about the microformats-discuss