On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Nelson Menezes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <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.
@title value in <abbr> is not hidden data. The user is able to hover the element and get to the information. The @title value is used as an alternative or replacement of <abbr> textContent. This is not the case in <input type="hidden">. On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Bob Jonkman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 for <input type="hidden"> > > Has someone tested this with a screen reader? > > I'm surprised that an <input> is valid without being nested inside a > <form>, but pleasantly so. > > This syntax seems no more difficult to parse than <abbr > title="something"> and using a standards-compliant attribute to > identify hidden text is far better than keeping visible something that > is meant only for machines. It is misleading to think that ISO 8601 is meant only for the machines. It is important to keep the data paired, a) human readable date/timestamp within context, b) human readable standardised date/timestamp. <abbr> is "good enough" for this or at least the most semantic candidate with minimal negative impact. Screen readers may have a problem with it only because of the way they are configured to treat the data. The information inside <abbr> is independent from how it will be interpret or treated by any UA for that matter. e.g. <p>I will see you <abbr title="2008-03-21" class="dtstamp">next week</abbr></p> Using <input type="hidden"> on the other hand hides information from humans and is essentially a very similar case to using meta keywords (as opposed to human tagging which is far more favoured now). -Sarven http://www.csarven.ca _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
