In message <45F129FE.8080306 xtra.co.nz>, Paul
Wilkins
<pmw57xtra.co.nz> writes
> you might write the date as 4/7/76 and force the reader
to find and
>use the abbreviation, but as someone who cares enough to
create a
>datetime design pattern, it should be obvious that
writing the date as
>July 4, 1776 solves the problem.
That's not always going to be feasible; consider tabular
data, or
verbatim quotations for instance.
>Another trouble is that with the arbitrary datetime
pattern in use, how
>can the machine benefit from that information. It's not
immediately
>clear.
It's not just the machines that might benefit. A
semantically marked-up
date can be presented according to the users preferences.
Given
2007-03-04, you might prefer to see March 4th 2007, where I
prefer 4
March 2007 (see, for comparison, the user setting for dates
in
Wikipedia).
--
Andy Mabbett
<http://www
.pigsonthewing.org.uk/uFsig/>
Welcome to the world's longest week!
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
|
