[uf-new] hAudio ISSUE #3: published-date is redundant

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Wed Aug 8 11:55:15 PDT 2007

On 8/8/07 8:14 AM, "Manu Sporny" <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> Brian Suda wrote:
>> If you look at the wiki page which lists our classes,
>> http://microformats.org/wiki/classes
>> you will see that we have several ways of specifying a date
>> hCard uses REV, which is the REVISION date
>> hCalendar uses LAST-MODIFIED, the time the calendar was last changes
>> hAtom uses UPDATED and PUBLISHED
>> I agree it should use the ISO date-time pattern every other date
>> format is using.
> So, we've got 3 votes for PUBLISHED using date-time pattern, none
> opposed. I'd like some others to weigh in before we resolve this. A
> simple AGREE/+1 would suffice, or DISAGREE with logical argument.

In either case, could folks please indicate their agreement or not on the
wiki page for the proposal with +/-1, their name, and any additional
commentary/explanation for the vote?

Let's keep track of content/state on the wiki, not in email please.



More information about the microformats-new mailing list