[microformats-discuss] Date design pattern (was re: Microformat
for timestamp of updated content)
rbach at rbach.priv.at
Fri Aug 19 15:07:32 PDT 2005
[Subject changed because this discussion about date representations
isn't specific to '(page-)last-modfied'.]
Joe Gregorio wrote:
> 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:
> 1997-07-16 19:20+01:00
> Care to guess what that last one represents?
> OTOH, RFC 3339 is strict, only the following forms are allowed
I think that using a subset of ISO8601 makes 'things' (parsing,
validating, etc.) easier but I don't think that RFC 3339 is expedient
because it requires to include a TIME portion.
Althought all wiki pages I've seen included a TIME portion, I've also
seen web pages which did not include a TIME portion within their 'Last
modfied on ' phrases.
There are also use cases for hCard and hCalendar elements which do not
require to have a TIME portion.
Brian Suda on http://microformats.org/wiki/datetime-design-pattern:
The RFC3339 has a mandatory TIME portion of the DATE-TIME. Some
vCard/iCalendar DATE-TIME stamps can omit the TIME. For instance,
DTSTART, if that is a full day event, then you can omit the time. BDAY
in vCard can be respresented by only a DATE. I like the idea of
restricting the possible date formats, but i think that TIME should be
optional, which it isn't in RFC3339. - brian suda
IMO the notations from
should be enough for (almost) every use case.
Robert Bachmann <rbach at rbach.priv.at> (OpenPGP KeyID: 0x4A5CCF10)
More information about the microformats-discuss