Re: Hcalendar in bbc.co.uk/programmes

Ciaran McNulty wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007 3:19 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
> <bhawkeslewisgooglemail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Robert O'Rourke wrote:
>> 1. 16:03 isn't an abbreviation for 12 September
2007. That's
>> /additional/ information. So that should be a SPAN
not an ABBR.
>>     
>
>   

That was Benjamin's comment not mine. I suggested a human
readable TITLE 
including the full date aswell as 16:03 and putting the
machine-readable 
date format into the CLASS attribute but that was also a bad
idea (too 
much accessibility etc...). That said I think it's better
than putting 
the machine readable date/time format in the TITLE. Surely
the parsers 
should be better able to figure that out from the human
readable date 
and time and leave 2007-12-12T16:03:00Z out altogether? I
know of at 
least one Perl module that does this [1]

> I'd disagree with this.  16:03 in the context of your
original page
> *will* refer to 16:03 on a specific day (I'm finding it
hard to think
> of a non-contrived example where it wouldn't) - it's
just abbreviated
> to 16:03. A human would gather that information from
context but it's
> more explicit in the machine-readable version.
>
>   

That was exactly my point when I wrote my example down. If
putting 
machine-readable information in TITLE isn't good then
perhaps it was a 
reasonable alternative re. accessibility, but of course
there are many 
arguments either way. To quote Angus:

> "title" on "abbr" (or
"span") looks like the least bad of a set of bad
> choices.

[1] http://search.cpan.org/~gbarr/TimeDate-1.16/lib/Dat
e/Parse.pm
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss