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 *visible* to humans, rather than invisible. >> >> But not the machine-readable part, No. microformats should not be encouraging *any* invisible data, because invisible data = inaccurate data. > if it makes no sense to the human reader. Plenty of people can read and make sense of ISO dates. > Exactly. I was still referring to the machine readable format. I > don't think the human readable part causes many problems veing > visible, not even to the machine. Human readable to one culture/language is not necessarily human readable to other cultures/languages. It might even make an interesting test to see what date format was more accurately readable to more readers world wide, e.g. YYYY-MM-DD or MM/DD for example. Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
