Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Tue Nov 1 08:00:08 PST 2005
On 11/1/05 2:08 AM, "David Janes -- BlogMatrix" <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com>
> Unfortunately (if I'm remembering correctly) those only deal with
> datetimes (w3c + rfc) and dates (w3c).
Hence the name of the page: *datetime*-design-pattern. The scope of the
page is named as such on purpose.
> The issue of time and durations
> is coming up
It is? From where?
> so I thought I'd get that in there using the same
> philosophy of thought: i.e. pick the most reasonable thing and put it in
> I'm not going to attempt to reinvent anything here; ISO 8601 all the
> way. Unfortunately (if I'm remembering correctly again), ISO doesn't
> believe in letting people know what their standards are unless they pay
> money so I attempted to copy the minimum amt of info to make it clear
> what we're talking about.
David, please re-read what I wrote. I'm not talking about reinventing
ISO8601. I'm talking about the wiki page reinventing a *profile* of
ISO8601. W3C-NOTE-DATETIME, RFC3339 are existing profiles that should first
be reused unless there are good reasons provided to go beyond them, and in
that case, hopefully only the changes can be documented.
I'll try to edit the page to show what I'm talking about.
> Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> 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.
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss