[uf-discuss] datetime-design-pattern

Kevin Marks kmarks at technorati.com
Mon Oct 31 23:12:26 PST 2005

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?

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list