[microformats-discuss] International date formats
lists at elegantchaos.com
Tue Jul 26 16:50:58 PDT 2005
On 26 Jul 2005, at 17:02, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> Why not? (or rather, why do you consider it "resort"ing?) As long
> as the
> markup is valid, there is something to be said for going with a simple
> solution that works. There is nothing inherently wrong with
> tool tips.
Sorry - maybe that sounded a bit harsh. There's nothing wrong with
add custom code to each page, or users install a plug-in of some sort
on their browser, just to get locally formatted dates.
I do think there's something wrong from a user interface point of
view with having to roll over a date to get a tool-tip, just to see
the locally formatted date. However, as has been pointed out, similar
code could probably inject the local format back between the <abbr>
tags, making the tool tip solution unnecessary.
Incidentally, I think it might be preferable if the design pattern
recommended using ISO8601 dates between the <abbr> tags as well as in
the title attribute (maybe using a space instead of a "T" between the
tags). This may not be quite as readable as the author's chosen
"human-friendly" representation, but it does have the advantage of
being fairly unambiguous, whereas other choices are more likely to
cause confusion. I can see that there will be cases where the date
needs to be specified more informally, so ISO8601 wouldn't be
appropriate, but there are also lots of cases where the exact
representation chosen doesn't matter very much, and in these cases it
would help if the default choice was a good one.
I am speaking as a Brit who is easily (and often) confused by
Americans writing the month before the day with no other context to
indicate that I'm reading American and not English!
Mind you, I am speaking as a Brit who is easily confused, full stop. ;)
Or should that be "easily confused, period"?
More information about the microformats-discuss