On Jan 13, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Paul Bryson wrote:
"Scott Reynen" wrote...
Microformats avoid addressing such hypothetical use cases. See:
http://microformats.org/wiki/process#Document_Current_Behavior
Then shouldn't it be removed from the current spec?
Perhaps. Just remember, even though we work on a wiki, which allows
instant editing, significant changes won't be made overnight. This
change to hreview would, I believe, require a new version of hReview,
which takes a bit of time and deliberation.
We don't have a formal process for this, but if someone will add the
issue to http://microformats.org/wiki/hreview-issues, we can be sure
that it gets covered as we iterate on hReview.
Personally, I would like to see a way to present the information
drawing on
some already defined and standardized method. Using the date-
pattern as a
basis of good design, allowing the information to be presented in
such a way
that information can be truncated without loss of parsability.
Remember, the datetime design pattern is was created for a situation
where we had to publish *both* human and machine data. It is
therefore a compromise between two of our principles (the DRY
principle and humans first). Such compromises are a last resort and
should only be used when absolutely necessary.
In the case of range information for hReview ratings, the range is
human readable data and there is no separate machine-only version
which must be published. Therefore there's nothing to hide with an
<abbr>.
-ryan
--
Ryan King
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
