Charles Iliya Krempeaux
supercanadian at gmail.com
Tue Nov 1 09:48:27 PST 2005
On 10/31/05, Kevin Marks <kmarks at technorati.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> > I skimmed the document, and it seems to imply that dates should always
> > be encoded in YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss±ZZZZ format.
> Yes, this is a good thing.
> > (Not sure if this has come up before, but) why not let the format be
> > specified in the class attribute? (With the default being iso8601.)
> > For example:
> > <abbr class="foo iso8601" title="20051031T23:01:31+0200">Halloween
> > at 11:00:31 PM</abbr>
> > <abbr class="foo rfc2822" title="Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:01:07
> > +0200">That day</abbr>
> Why? What is served by adding an extra parameter and another huge
> parsing load to support a non-localised obsolete date format?
The point wasn't really to support old obsolete date formats, but to
support new date formats in the future.
Even iso8601 may become obsolete eventually.
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
Never forget where you came from
More information about the microformats-discuss