On Mar 5, 2009, at 13:33, j...@eatyourgreens.org.uk wrote:
Is <time> then like <address> in HTML 4? ie. intended for certain dates only, just as <address> may not be used to mark up all addresses?
Yes, in the sense that <time> is designed for contemporary secular civilian use cases. (If someone uses the (Common-Era) proleptic Gregorian calendar calendar for other use cases, (s)he gets a fortuitous free ride.)
In that case, the spec should be clear on correct and incorrect usage, with examples of both to guide authors.
Indeed: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6536
Bruce Lawson uses <time> to mark up the dates of blog posts in the HTML5 version of his wordpress templates. Is this incorrect usage of HTML5?
It's not incorrect, as currently drafted, but it's most likely not useful.
If not, how should HTML5 blog templates work when the blog is dated from 1665 (http://pepysdiary.com) or 1894 (http://www.cosmicdiary1894.blogspot.com/)?
If a blogger backdates posts in a way that doesn't fit the (Common- Era) proleptic Gregorian calendar, (s)he shouldn't use <time>. Note that currently http://www.cosmicdiary1894.blogspot.com/ shows the real posting date in Blogger's date field and the backdated date as text in a heading and neither has any kind of microformat markup.
-- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
