On 14/03/2008, Christopher St John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd read: > > http://tantek.com/log/2005/06.html#d03t2359
That is a good read, and a good point. I concede that you really don't want to use hidden data unless there is a good case for it. > then spend a bit of time looking through the mailing list and chat logs > (google > with site:microformats.org is helpful) I did, but I can't find anything referring specifically to this scenario. Apologies if I'm a bit thick! If you know of a specific talk/page I'm happy to read it... > Short version: If you gotta hide stuff (like ISO dates), then hide them very, > very close to the visible representation on the page of the thing you're > hiding. Agreed. And when there are relevant (i.e. semantically meaningful) tags or tag attributes that should be the way to go. If, however, there aren't or they cause significant side-effects, I think that carefully-thought-through use of <input type="hidden" /> fields could be a good option. The ISO date seems like one of these scenarios: the usage of the <abbr> title attribute makes sense but has practical disadvantages that (in my opinion) will actually hinder its adoption. For instance, many designers would dislike the idea of non-human-friendly tooltips scarring their websites (and so might want to opt out of using the microformat). More importantly, there's the well-documented accessibility issue with screen readers. So I would suggest something like this as the simplest approach for a date pattern: <span class="date">March 14th<input type="hidden" value="2008-03-14" /></span> Is it hidden data? Yes, but so is the title attribute in an <abbr> tag. This is maybe slightly more "hidden", but I think it's a good compromise. -- Nelson Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
