[uf-discuss] Re: Using object for datetimes (was: Microformats and RDFa not as far apart as previously thought)
On 28 Jun 2008, at 17:03, Ed Lucas wrote: George Brocklehurst wrote: Is it worth revisiting Tantek's original suggestion of using the object element to represent dates? [1] The idea was to do something like this: object data=20050125January 25/object This particular example is invalid, as the data= attribute must contain a URI, and a URI cannot start with a number. display:inline and intrinsic sizing will work correctly. Safari 2.0.2, which came out in November 2005, was the first version to contain these improvements [2]. For note, I don't feel that CSS support on an element should be of consideration when designing microformats. We are operating at the HTML level and must not produce techniques which depend on them (although documenting techniques where CSS can be used to enhace/alter microformats is still valuable, I'm simply meaning that HTML+CSS must not ever be the primary solution to a problem). It might be that there are other reasons for not using object that I've missed (I'm fairly new to the wonderful world of Microformats) and it might be that there's still a significant population of Safari users on 2.0.1 or older, but if not this could be a way forward that gets around the abbr issue. I'm normally just a lurker here, but no-one has replied, so... Using the object element seems like a very sensible solution. What are the blocking issues now that Safari handles it? So, one solution I saw offered to the URIs-can't-start-with-numbers issues was to do everything as a URL fragment, converting it to: object data=#20050125January 25/object That, however, causes Safari 3 to render a box of the current page within the OBJECT element, and so would introduce a CSS dependency to keep it hidden. No good, I fear. *However*, the following appears to be well behaved inline in Safari 2.04 and 3.1.1, Firefox 1, 1.5, 2 and 3, and Opera 7, 8 and 9. object class=dtstart data=data://20080712/object That uses the DATA URI scheme, which without a specified mime type and charset, defaults to text/plain;chartset=US=ASCII. I think that would be sufficient. I've pastied my test case, and would be grateful if people could test the behaviour in Internet Explorer: http://pastie.org/224023 Given that IE has a history of abysmal support for OBJECT and no support for data: URIs… I have no idea what might happen. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data:_URI_scheme http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2397 (data: spec) http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt (URI spec) B ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Re: Using object for datetimes (was: Microformats and RDFa not as far apart as previously thought)
On [Jun 28], at [ Jun 28] 11:09 , Ben Ward wrote: On 28 Jun 2008, at 17:03, Ed Lucas wrote: George Brocklehurst wrote: Is it worth revisiting Tantek's original suggestion of using the object element to represent dates? [1] The idea was to do something like this: object data=20050125January 25/object This particular example is invalid, as the data= attribute must contain a URI, and a URI cannot start with a number. About a week ago I wrote: On the abbr-design-pattern page, markup rejections section [1] is the following text: OBJECT with param value. (requires significant extra markup and CSS in order to *behave* correctly) Can anyone provide more detail about this parenthetical rejection explanation? If this problem has in fact been resolved (or at least improved) in more recent browser versions, I suggest we look again at using object and param together, e.g.: object class=dtstartparam name=value value=20050125 / January 25/object I expect using param will result in more readable and flexible markup than data URIs. Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Re: Using object for datetimes (was: Microformats and RDFa not as far apart as previously thought)
On 28 Jun 2008, at 18:09, Ben Ward wrote: I've pastied my test case, and would be grateful if people could test the behaviour in Internet Explorer: http://pastie.org/224023 IE 6, 7 and the beta version of IE 8 all visibly render the object element as a small box, similar to the way they would render a missing image: http://georgebrock.com/misc/object-in-ie.png ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
[uf-discuss] Re: Using object for datetimes (was: Microformats and RDFa not as far apart as previously thought)
Ben Ward wrote: On 28 Jun 2008, at 17:03, Ed Lucas wrote: object data=20050125January 25/object This particular example is invalid, as the data= attribute must contain a URI, and a URI cannot start with a number. It's perfectly valid. Absolute URIs can't start with a number, but relative ones can - and the data attribute is permitted to contain relative URIs. This proposal is far less elegant than Frances' though. -- Toby A Inkster mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tobyinkster.co.uk ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
