Glenn Jones wrote:
As the exchange between Ben and Jeremy has shown what is human readable
is up for debate. Having spent far too much time looking at the ISO date
formats they are all readable to me, but I know that's not the case for
everyone else.
We need to expand the discussion and ask those involved in the
accessibility area what is an acceptable human readable format. The
format 2008-01-25 is a compromise and as such we need to ask the other
party is it's an acceptable middle ground. For example would the BBC
accept 2008-01-25 in the title of a abbr.
Since the BBC's request was specifically related to screen readers, we
may want to distinguish "machine-readable", "human-readable" and
"human-hearable". I think there is less debate re: what is
"human-hearable" than there is debate re: what is "human-readable"
IMO, "2008-01-25" is indeed more human-readable than
"2008-01-25T12:00:11", but it is still less "human-hearable" than the
plain old English "January 25th, 2008", which is human-readable and
machine-readable as long as it is written following precisely English US
conventions and the locale can be deduced from a lang attribute (either
global to the HTML document or local to the date).
Moreover, "January 25th, 2008" is indeed an expansion form of say "1/25"
so, the following is correct HTML:
<abbr title="January 25th, 2008" class="dstart" lang="en-us">1/25</abbr>
Guillaume
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
