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 >> somewhat *visible* to humans, rather than invisible. > > I think it's important to be clear about this and I find "the date > needs to be at least somewhat *visible* to humans" still very > ambiguous, as the responses so far seem to suggest. *Which* date are > you talking about? Any/all. > The human-readable date obviously needs to be > human-readable, but are you including the machine-readable date > here? Yes. > If so, which microformats principle suggests this? Visible data. > Designing > for humans first suggests to me that we should give humans human- > readable dates and keep the machine-readable dates for machines. Making dates machine readable does not preclude making them at least *somewhat* visible. > I think this is what human readers generally prefer, and it must be > what human publishers prefer, or we wouldn't have any need for the > abbr design pattern in the first place. The abbr design pattern balanced the visible data being the most human readable, and the somewhat visible (title attribute, visible only as a tooltip typically) data being the more machine readable version. No version of the data should be encourage to be invisible as it will simply become inaccurate as a result. Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
