RE: [syndication] Some suggestions for RSS .92

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

Hi,

Sorry about the previous double post.  

Of course, going with what I proposed below, the next issue is agreeing on what the supported formats would be.  But it seems to me that a <time> tag that denotes the date in ms and another tag for <date> would be redundant.

As this spec is trying to keep it simple, are attributes something you'd like to stay away from?

Steve

--

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:53:15  
 Steve Agalloco wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>


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