Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Mon Oct 31 23:12:52 PST 2005
On 10/31/05 10:59 PM, "Charles Iliya Krempeaux" <supercanadian at gmail.com>
> On 10/31/05, David Janes -- BlogMatrix <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com> wrote:
>> I've been mucking about with the datetime-design-pattern page . If
>> you have a pretty good idea what the final consensus opinion for the
>> exact format, can you please add it in.
>> I've also added sections for "date", "time" and "duration" variants,
>> which I've noticed are poping up in other areas of discussion.
>> Regards, etc...
>>  http://microformats.org/wiki/datetime-design-pattern
> I skimmed the document, and it seems to imply that dates should always
> be encoded in YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss±ZZZZ format.
> (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>
Ask the opposite question.
Why let the format be specified?
When in doubt, more flexibility/generality is usually worse.
Rather, microformats says the simpler solution (assuming ISO8601), is the
And that such infinite flexibility is an anti-pattern to be avoided.
> <abbr class="foo rfc2822" title="Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:01:07
> +0200">That day</abbr>
> (Or maybe something like urn:rfc:2822 and urn:iso:8601 would be better.)
"Better" according to what value system?
More information about the microformats-discuss