[microformats-discuss] re: Microformat for timestamp of updated content

[Stephen Downes]

Bryan J Busch wrote:

>><p>
>>Last update:
>><abbr class="page-last-modified" title="20050102">2 Jan 2005</abbr>
>> </p>
>>    
>>
Hm.

Shouldn't be 'page' because in many cases the item last modified is not 
necessarily stand-alone. I would just say 'last-modified'.

Also, looking at the various systems of designating dates online, a 
plain format such as '20050102' and '2 Jan 2005' is definitely 
non-standard. Minimally, I would recommend adoption of the W3C's 
recommendation: http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime See also ISO 8601 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

-- Stephen


-- 

Stephen Downes  ~  Research Officer  ~  National Research Council Canada
http://www.downes.ca  ~  stephen at downes.ca         __\|/__ Free Learning

--

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/attachments/20050816/dba3b22c/attachment.html