Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Tantek Çelik writes
>
>> the blog post on hAccessibility WaSP was seriously
flawed
> [...]
>> 2. It recommended known unworkable solutions
>
> Perhaps you missed this part:
>
> We encourage the Microformats group to consider
the problem,
> whether or not they accept any of the
following, proposed
> solutions.
There is one other part Tantek may have missed when he
wrote:
>> In addition I think this is a case where a little
bit of pain now
>> with abbr and some tools actually opens up the
potential for
>> *much* better accessibility/usability tools (once
UAs actually
>> recognize ISO dates as such and can speak/rewrite
them for a
>> user's datetime/language/locality preferences). I
for one think
>> this tradeoff is more than reasonable.
The article also states:
> The Microformats group is vehemently opposed to
hypothetical
> situations as the basis for a Microformat change.
Real-world
> examples are often requested, or as they commonly
phrase it,
> examples “in the wild.”
>
> We remind the Microformats group that real-world screen
reader
> implementations existed, according to spec and “in the
wild,” long
> before the Microformats design patterns, and we
encourage the group
> to respect those real-world implementations, rather
than focusing
> on hypothetical situations...
The "screen readers may support ISO dates someday"
argument is a
great idea–I will laud it if it happens–but it's completely
hypothetical. Surely you can admit that, and if so, maybe
you can
admit the argument is not a legitmate justification for the
datetime-
design-pattern, and especially not for the use of
abbr-design-pattern
in geo.
James
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
|
