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

[Robert Bachmann]

Stephen Downes wrote:
> Bryan J Busch wrote:
> 
>>> <p>
>>> Last update:
>>> <abbr class="page-last-modified" title="20050102">2 Jan 2005</abbr>
>>> </p>
>>>   
> 
> Hm.
> 
> Shouldn't be 'page' because in many cases the item last modified is not
> necessarily stand-alone. I would just say 'last-modified'.

Are there any problems with having a microformat which soly expresses
the last modification date/'date-time' of a page?

I agree that there are cases were people do express the date/'date-time'
of specific page items/entries.
This is the reason why I choosed 'page-last-modified' instead of
'last-modified'.

If some people would use 'class="last-modified"' to mark up the last
modifcation of a page, and other people would use
'class="last-modified"' to mark up the last modification of an
item/entry how could parsers recognize if the whole page or a specific
item is meant?

Robert
-- 
Robert Bachmann <rbach at rbach.priv.at> (OpenPGP KeyID: 0x4A5CCF10)