On 1/16/06 2:40 PM, "David Janes -- BlogMatrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> brian suda wrote: >> David Janes -- BlogMatrix wrote: >> >>> If you were to do this (I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea) >>> wouldn't you do it the other way, with the machine readable data >>> inside the title? >>> >>> <abbr class="region" title="CA">California</a>, >>> <abbr class="country" title="US">U.S.A.</abbr> >> >> >> except by definition of the ABBR element, the text node is the short >> form. So it would have to be >> <abbr class="region" title="California">CA</abbr> >> >> you could do >> >> <span class="region" title="CA">California</span> >> >> and that is both valid HTML and the microformat parser should use >> "California" in this instance. >> > > Isn't this the opposite of datetime-design-pattern though? No. The reason we were able to use <abbr> like this for dates and times is because the *human* use of dates and times is almost always an abbreviation, and the *computer* version (i.e. ISO8601) is almost always a complete expansion. > I'm thinking > here ... maybe we're operating under different assumptions ... of CA is > a computer readable form, not as an abbreviation. The "region" is simply a string. There is no reason for a separate computer-readable form, therefore we avoid it. In general microformats avoid separate forms for humans and computers because of the DRY principle. We make an exception for date-time info only because of a greater principle, which is humans first, machines second. Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
