Andy Mabbett wrote:
Tantek Çelik writes
the blog post on hAccessibility WaSP was seriously flawed
[...]
2. It recommended known unworkable solutions
Perhaps you missed this part:
We encourage the Microformats group to consider the problem,
whether or not they accept any of the following, proposed
solutions.
There is one other part Tantek may have missed when he wrote:
In addition I think this is a case where a little bit of pain now
with abbr and some tools actually opens up the potential for
*much* better accessibility/usability tools (once UAs actually
recognize ISO dates as such and can speak/rewrite them for a
user's datetime/language/locality preferences). I for one think
this tradeoff is more than reasonable.
The article also states:
The Microformats group is vehemently opposed to hypothetical
situations as the basis for a Microformat change. Real-world
examples are often requested, or as they commonly phrase it,
examples “in the wild.”
We remind the Microformats group that real-world screen reader
implementations existed, according to spec and “in the wild,” long
before the Microformats design patterns, and we encourage the group
to respect those real-world implementations, rather than focusing
on hypothetical situations...
The "screen readers may support ISO dates someday" argument is a
great idea–I will laud it if it happens–but it's completely
hypothetical. Surely you can admit that, and if so, maybe you can
admit the argument is not a legitmate justification for the datetime-
design-pattern, and especially not for the use of abbr-design-pattern
in geo.
James
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
