Hi Dan, On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 01:29, Dan Chudnov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 21, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Jonathan M. Lane wrote: > >> I think it might be time to revise unAPI to encourage (preferably mandate, >> but that's probably unrealistic) the use of the value class pattern, which >> is a proven microformat pattern that does not have the same accessibility >> issues as the ABBR design pattern. > > Thanks for bringing this up. Sorry for the delayed response. > > I haven't been tuned in to microformats in a while. Is this the pattern > you're referring to? > > http://microformats.org/wiki/value-class-pattern
Exactly right. > I'm not sure there's a lot to gain from updating unAPI at this point. Are > you using it? I am not using it myself, but I work closely with the technical library at my institutional library, who are actively maintaining some unAPI access points on some of their services and systems. While unAPI may be past it's prime (I am not certain if unAPI has been replaced by something newer/more appealing), updating the standard to recommend the use of a more accessibility-friendly and semantically correct microformat would be beneficial for anyone still using unAPI or those considering implementing it. Any reasons why it may not be worth updating the standard to use the value-class-pattern microformat? Jonathan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gcs-pcs-list" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gcs-pcs-list?hl=en.
