[XML-SIG] Useless fun thing for XML - comments or helpers?

Lars Marius Garshol larsga@ifi.uio.no
Thu, 03 Sep 1998 16:57:41 +0200

* Fredrik Lundh
>Note that nodes can contain other nodes (bookmarks and nodes are 
>mixed in the order they are found), and the top node doesn't have
>a name element.  Let's see...  Is the following valid syntax?

Yes, but I'm a bit uneasy about making NAME optional. Maybe we should
have a separate element for the top NODE?

>How about:

Looks good to me; Opera has CREATED and VISITED.

>(where dates are stored according to http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime
>or RFC1766 or something -- is there a "defacto standard" for dates in XML?)

Not at present, but ISO 8601 looks like a likely candidate. I think the
19980902 variant of ISO 8601 is the best one.

--Lars M.