On 30/06/2008, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 29, 2008, at 15:18, Frances Berriman wrote: > > > > The BBC can't use HTML5. It won't validate, > >
Sorry - I should have qualified - I meant with their current doctype. > 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>. > Consider.. but hasn't happened yet :) Yes, though, I agree in principle - It's never a never! > > > 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 Kind of. HTML5 will afford us lots of opportunities to improve and lighten up microformats (microformats lite?) but I think that comes under a different piece of work. -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss