Ciaran McNulty wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 3:19 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert O'Rourke wrote:
1. 16:03 isn't an abbreviation for 12 September 2007. That's
/additional/ information. So that should be a SPAN not an ABBR.
That was Benjamin's comment not mine. I suggested a human readable TITLE
including the full date aswell as 16:03 and putting the machine-readable
date format into the CLASS attribute but that was also a bad idea (too
much accessibility etc...). That said I think it's better than putting
the machine readable date/time format in the TITLE. Surely the parsers
should be better able to figure that out from the human readable date
and time and leave 2007-12-12T16:03:00Z out altogether? I know of at
least one Perl module that does this [1]
I'd disagree with this. 16:03 in the context of your original page
*will* refer to 16:03 on a specific day (I'm finding it hard to think
of a non-contrived example where it wouldn't) - it's just abbreviated
to 16:03. A human would gather that information from context but it's
more explicit in the machine-readable version.
That was exactly my point when I wrote my example down. If putting
machine-readable information in TITLE isn't good then perhaps it was a
reasonable alternative re. accessibility, but of course there are many
arguments either way. To quote Angus:
"title" on "abbr" (or "span") looks like the least bad of a set of bad
choices.
[1] http://search.cpan.org/~gbarr/TimeDate-1.16/lib/Date/Parse.pm
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
