RE: [syndication] Some suggestions for RSS .92

["Steve Agalloco" <spagalloco@lycos.com>]

How about adding an attribute to the <date>?  for example...

<date format="ISO8601">2000-10-18 05:52 EST</date>

Or do you want to stay away from tag attributes?

Steve

Steve Agalloco - Creative Director - NewsTrolls - http://www.newstrolls.com
--

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:19:24  
 Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
>As far as I know there is no mention of dates / times that I've come across
>in the spec / working with XSLT.
>
>As I said we 'extend and embrace' RSS internally here with a <time> field
>that has a millisecond value in it, which is easily sortable as an integer
>using pure XSLT.
>
>The only solution I can see (if XSLT is cared enough about) is to use a
>format that sorts itself alphanumerically eg YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm GMT (all
>integers) .
>
>Mike
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeff Bone [mailto:jbone@jump.net]
>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 12:25 PM
>> To: syndication@egroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [syndication] Some suggestions for RSS .92
>>
>>
>>
>> Lurker weighing in here...
>>
>> I agree with Dan that ISO8601 is the preferred format for dates, but Mike
>> brings up a good point re: XSLT.  A quick grep of the XSLT 1.0
>> spec seems to
>> reveal that it doesn't speak to datetime value transformations at all;
>> without knowing more about XSLT myself, it's difficult to say
>> whether or not
>> this poses a problem in using XSLT to process other XML documents that use
>> ISO8601.  It's possible that XSLT "inherits" something in the way
>> of managing
>> datetimes from some other W3C recommendation that I'm not aware of, but
>> without a more comprehensive read of the XSLT recommendation (and
>> it's been
>> months since I looked at it before tonight) it's hard to say.
>> Note however
>> that W3C has a separate NOTE [1] out discussing ISO8601.  Standard W3C
>> disclaimer notwithstanding, the issue of whether this should be
>> interpreted
>> as any sort of endorsement is an open question. [2]  Note that this whole
>> area is (was?) controversial enough that at some point there was
>> a W3C-hosted
>> mailing list about the discussion. [3]
>>
>> Mike, since you raised the question:  what's the answer?
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> jb
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/Submission/1997/14/Comment.html
>> [3] mailto:datetime-comments@w3.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>


10% cash back on all your calls through 2000 at Lycos Communications at http://comm.lycos.com