Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Tue Nov 1 00:03:21 PST 2005
On 10/31/05 1:24 PM, "David Janes -- BlogMatrix" <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com>
> I've been mucking about with the datetime-design-pattern page . If
> you have a pretty good idea what the final consensus opinion for the
> exact format, can you please add it in.
Note that we made this a *design-pattern* instead of a *format* on purpose.
It is actually a non-goal to make this an "exact format" for many reasons.
One reason this is a design pattern rather than a *format* is that precise
definitions of which dates or times etc. are allowed are often up to the
specific format that is being worked on.
> I've also added sections for "date", "time" and "duration" variants,
> which I've noticed are poping up in other areas of discussion.
Rather than attempting to write up yet another profile of ISO8601, and the
rules that come with it, perhaps it would be better to consider
comparing/exploring existing profiles, like those noted in the IRC
transcript on that page: W3C-NOTE-DATETIME, RFC3339.
More information about the microformats-discuss