As the exchange between Ben and Jeremy has shown what is human readable is up for debate. Having spent far too much time looking at the ISO date formats they are all readable to me, but I know that's not the case for everyone else.
We need to expand the discussion and ask those involved in the accessibility area what is an acceptable human readable format. The format 2008-01-25 is a compromise and as such we need to ask the other party is it's an acceptable middle ground. For example would the BBC accept 2008-01-25 in the title of a abbr. For me a good rule of thumb is as a html author would you be happy writing out the format in the text of a page for your users to read. I personally would never write 2008-01-05 in a public document. My main issue with the "value excerption optimization rule" approach that Jeremy has been talking about, is that it may not work with other data types A <abbr class="duration" title="P2D">2 day</abbr> event <abbr class="geo" title="37.77;-122.41">Northern California</abbr> <abbr class="tz" title="-07:00">EST</abbr> <abbr class="rate" title="4">4 out of 5</abbr> Etc. The only way to escape the internationalisation issues is not to use anything other than numerical and separator chars. Expressing a duration of "2 weeks and 3 days" in numbers and is still making it human readable is a challenge! Could we also say the rate title attribute with a value "4" is "provide the full or expanded form of the expression" 4 out of 5. We do need to resolve this issue globally across all content which requires machine readability. Although this option looks attractive at first sight, it is still problematic. Glenn Jones _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss