iso date isn't necessarily required when someone enters a date (i.e.
saying 24th June doesn't translate into a single date, neither does
'thursday'). Shouldn't the focus be on trying to standardise date
I'm normally all for liberalness in parsing but NOT when the intended
meaning becomes
Hello,
Just an FYI.
http://www.ysearchblog.com/archives/000444.html
Basically, there's a class name robots-nocontent that marks a
section of a webpage as not to be NOT payed attention to but
Yahoo!'s webcrawler.
Seems related to...
http://microformats.org/wiki/robots-exclusion
See ya
--
Looks to me that we have these goals:
* Specify a date in a format that a machine can understand (i.e. the
ISO8601 format)
* Stash it somewhere where it's legal to do so, and is not apparent
to human readers
I'm still undecided whether a full ISO date is abbreviable as a normal
date, but looks
Hi all,
I've obviously been following the recent push to have POSH adopted as
a buzzword to discourage people from mis-using the term ‘microformat’
in their semantic endeavours.
Now the whole point of this is to differentiate semantic HTML from
microformats, discourage the further
On 03/05/2007, at 7:02 PM, Ben Ward wrote:
As part of our ‘community mark’ experiment I'd like to object to
that usage of the microformats logo and ask those badges be
removed. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the term, POSH is
explicitly supposed to be a super-set of microformats, a
i think the abbr pattern is a valid one. moving the unambiguous
timestamp to some place humans can't see it is asking for it to be
removed be a third party (whether that is a screenreader, an html
sanitizer, or a web browser makes little difference.) and of course in
some cases you can get away
On 5/3/07 1:40 AM, victor jalencas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Stash it somewhere where it's legal to do so
valid would be more precise rather than legal
and is not apparent to human readers
To be clear, this clause, in the absolute, is undesirable. That is, in
following the principles of
Tantek Çelik wrote:
To be clear, this clause, in the absolute, is undesirable. That is, in
following the principles of microformats, the date needs to be at least
somewhat *visible* to humans, rather than invisible.
But not the machine-readable part, if it makes no sense to the human reader.
Ben Wiley Sittler wrote:
in
some cases you can get away with not using abbr:
Q1 '07: span class=dtstart2007-01-01/span through span
class=dtend2007-04-01/span
with hyphens it's reasonably human-readable. i've been using fully
punctuated iso 8601 date notation it everyday life (checks,
On 03/05/07, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tantek Çelik wrote:
To be clear, this clause, in the absolute, is undesirable. That is, in
following the principles of microformats, the date needs to be at least
somewhat *visible* to humans, rather than invisible.
But not the
victor jalencas wrote:
Since using ISO8601 is a w3c recommendation, I wondered where
specifically they were recommending its use. Looks like there is an
element (a couple of them, actually) with an attribute that can
legally contain an ISO datetime: INS and DEL.
Technically, that should only
Tantek Çelik wrote:
and is not apparent to human readers
To be clear, this clause, in the absolute, is undesirable. That is, in
following the principles of microformats, the date needs to be at least
somewhat *visible* to humans, rather than invisible.
I still don't understand this part.
On May 3, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
and is not apparent to human readers
To be clear, this clause, in the absolute, is undesirable. That
is, in
following the principles of microformats, the date needs to be at
least
somewhat *visible* to humans, rather than invisible.
I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben
Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I've obviously been following the recent push to have POSH adopted as
a buzzword to discourage people from mis-using the term ‘microformat’
in their semantic endeavours.
Now the whole point of this is to differentiate semantic HTML
Yes, standardization takes a long time, and it's only clear in
retrospect that a standard has really stuck. In my opinion, the jury
is still out on ISO 8601...
However, using 8601 in an abbr title and your house style in the abbr
content should work just fine, right?
On 5/3/07, Patrick H. Lauke
Ben Wiley Sittler wrote:
However, using 8601 in an abbr title and your house style in the abbr
content should work just fine, right?
Yes, of course. Just wanted to add the concept that, as authors,
sometimes the content part of pages isn't fully up to us either :)
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
On 5/3/07 10:48 AM, victor jalencas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03/05/07, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tantek Çelik wrote:
To be clear, this clause, in the absolute, is undesirable. That is, in
following the principles of microformats, the date needs to be at least
somewhat
On 5/3/07 2:50 PM, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 3, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
and is not apparent to human readers
To be clear, this clause, in the absolute, is undesirable. That
is, in
following the principles of microformats, the date needs to be at
least
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andy Mabbett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Note also that this issue was discussed previously,
in September 2006:
And here, in early March 2007. as part of the tread starting with:
http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-March/008935.html
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Wiley
Sittler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Q1 '07: span class=dtstart2007-01-01/span through span
class=dtend2007-04-01/span
In addition to Patrick's valid concerns about house style; I would again
point out that dtend is exclusive; microformats currently (and
Yes, hence all these tricks to communicate the same data in two
different formats...
On 5/3/07, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Wiley Sittler wrote:
However, using 8601 in an abbr title and your house style in the abbr
content should work just fine, right?
Yes, of course. Just
On 5/3/07 1:14 PM, Jon Gibbins (dotjay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tantek Çelik wrote:
and is not apparent to human readers
To be clear, this clause, in the absolute, is undesirable. That is, in
following the principles of microformats, the date needs to be at least
somewhat *visible* to
just by the way, the current microformats behavior is in line with iso
8601's interval semantics from my reading of the specs.
On 5/3/07, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Wiley
Sittler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Q1 '07: span class=dtstart2007-01-01/span
Tantek Çelik wrote:
2. Keep both copies of the data at least somewhat visible to humans so that
at least *some* human eyes/ears can easily inspect both copies and ensure
that they have not diverged.
For the sake of argument, though: assuming that those human eyes/ears
use a
From: Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In addition to Patrick's valid concerns about house style; I would again
point out that dtend is exclusive; microformats currently (and
wrongly, from a semantic and accessibility PoV) require:
Q1 '07: span class=dtstart2007-01-01/span through abbr
This is a very difficult problem. Difficult problems need as many
potential solutions as possible to be presented- The more solutions,
the more chance of arriving at a good one. The tricky part here is
creating a solution which is in line with common usage.
It seems to me that by basing
I should perhaps add that my solution must also violate either
restriction 3, or 4- that is, you can hide the year element with CSS.
If you leave it visible, then it may follow common usage in a lot of
situations. Or you might end up using a year in situations where you
may not usually
At 12:24 AM +0100 4 05 2007, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Tantek Çelik wrote:
2. Keep both copies of the data at least somewhat visible to humans so that
at least *some* human eyes/ears can easily inspect both copies and ensure
that they have not diverged.
For the sake of argument, though:
Breton Slivka wrote:
span class=vmonthJuly/span span class=vday26/spanth,
span class=vyear2005/span
This solution is certainly more verbose, but note that it follows
all restrictions except for 7.
I don't think this will work, for the same reason tel-type and adr-
type don't work:
Al Gilman wrote:
If the machineable info is not routinely passing through the
consciousness of the communicating principals (that is, people),
Who may, without the machine-mediated interpretation, not actually be
able to make a qualitative judgement (e.g. if I see a geo lat/long value
, I'm
Q1 '07: span class=dtstart2007-01-01/span through abbr
class=dtend title=2007-04-022007-04-01/abbr
I have proposed a solution to this problem:
http://microformats.org/wiki/hcalendar-brainstorming#Simplification_of_date-end
I do agree that such counter-intuitive things could
I don't think this will work, for the same reason tel-type and adr- type
don't work: l10n/i18n. They require displayed machine values to be in
English.
span class=vmonth lang=enJuly/span
span class=vmonth lang=esjulio/span
span class=vmonth lang=jp7 月/span
span class=vmonth lang=ruиюль/span
32 matches
Mail list logo
