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

[Joe Gregorio]

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:

1997
1997-07
19970716
1997-07-16 19:20+01:00
1997-07-16T19:20+01:00
2003-W14-2
2003W142
12:30:01
19

Care to guess what that last one represents?

OTOH, RFC 3339 is strict, only the following forms are allowed

\d\d\d\d-\d\d-\d\dT\d\d:\d\d:\d\d(\.\d*)?Z

or 

\d\d\d\d-\d\d-\d\dT\d\d:\d\d:\d\d(\.\d*)?(\+|-)\d\d:\d\d

   -joe

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?
> 
> -ryan_______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
> 


-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org