On Jun 29, 2008, at 15:18, Frances Berriman wrote:
The BBC can't use HTML5. It won't validate,
HTML5 validates (in the present tense) at http://html5.validator.nu/
Moreover, if validation causes you to emit user experience-degrading
markup in violation if the intended language semantics*, validation
isn't helping but hurting you.
(* Let's be honest: abbr wasn't designed to expand "one hour ago" to
an ISO date with a crufty "T" separator and time zone designators and
all.)
it doesn't adhere to their standards and guidelines or
If they are willing to consider amending their guidelines to allow
RDFa, which is also invalid HTML 4.01/XHTML 1.0/XHTML 1.1, surely they
*could* choose to amend their own guidelines to allow <time>.
their browser support levels.
I thought the point was that they don't want the markup for
microformat datetimes to be UI-sensitive in legacy browsers (or browser
+AT combinations).
A core principle of microformats is that they should work with the
technologies available and in use *now* (HTML5 isn't widely supported
and isn't even a w3c recommendation yet).
Wouldn't it make sense, though, to specify that <time> be supported as
an alternative to <abbr> in hCalendar datetimes, so that when the
community becomes comfortable with publishing HTML5 content, the
installed base of parsers would already be there?
On Jun 29, 2008, at 20:39, Toby A Inkster wrote:
See:
http://microformats.org/wiki/datetime-design-pattern#HTML_5_.3Ctime.3E_Element
Thanks.
On Jun 30, 2008, at 02:11, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
I'd be wary of using a hybrid of HTML 4.01, RDfa, and HTML5 when
neither RDFa nor HTML5 have been finalized yet, and when HTML5 is
going to determine how browsers actually parse all text/html. What
if HTML5 ends up specifying something in a way that is incompatible
with the hybrid?
HTML 5 spec section maturity is very much driven by implementation
maturity. The microformats community can make the format of the <time>
element stable by shipping a bazillion interoperable hCalendar parsers
implementing the way <time> is drafted.
On Jun 30, 2008, at 03:49, Paul Wilkins wrote:
We are specifically advised by the W3C QA Group that custom DTDs are
a bad idea.
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/customdtds2/
More to the point, DTDs are a bad idea. You can use custom RELAX NG
without polluting you markup with schema-specific declaration cruft at http://validator.nu/
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
