Scott Reynen wrote: > Lorenzo De Tomasi wrote: > >> But now the question is which is the correct ISO 8601 timestamp? >> 2008-01-29T11:42:00+01:00 or 2008-01-29T11:42:00+0100? > > Both are valid per ISO 8601.
True. But it is worth remembering that ISO 8601 encompases a whole range of different datetime formats. The datetime as I write this paragraph could be recorded variously as: 2008-03-08T19:03:12.000000+00:00 20080308T190312Z 2008-W10-6T190312+0000 2008W106T190312.000+0000 2008-068T190312.0Z 2008068T19:03:12Z Most applications do not want to have to parse so many different datetime formats, so specify a subset ("profile") of ISO8601 which they support. The datetime design pattern states that microformats SHOULD use a profile of ISO8601 to use, and that profile SHOULD be RFC 3339 and/or W3CDTF, neither of which support the colon-free UTC offset. Of course, to be annoying, none of the microformats which actually make use of the datetime design pattern (hCalendar, hCard, hAtom, hReview) actionally *do* specify which profile of ISO8601 to use, implying that you can basically choose your favourite ISO8601 date format and use that. 2008W106T190312.000+0000, here I come! In fact, hCard and hReview don't even normatively reference ISO8601, so theoretically <span class="bday">First of June 1980</span> should be allowed, though that's just being plain cruel to parsers! -- Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS [Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux] [OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 39 days, 1:16.] Bottled Water http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/02/18/bottled-water/ _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss