[uf-discuss] changing abbr-design-pattern to title-design-pattern?

Patrick H. Lauke redux at splintered.co.uk
Sat Apr 28 14:37:45 PDT 2007

Jeremy Keith wrote:

>> However, I'm against contorting microformats because of bugs or 
>> suboptimal
>> behaviors in <1% marketshare browsers.
> Normally I would agree with you here. But the situation with screen 
> readers is somewhat different. We're not talking about a regular browser 
> here: if someone is using a sub-optimal or outdated web browser and they 
> don't get the full benefits, then that's something that can be brushed 
> over but for a blind person using the most up-to-date technology 
> available to have to put up with an illegible piece of data isn't 
> acceptable. In this particular case, the market share numbers are--to my 
> mind--irrelevant.

Also, it strikes me as interesting that the epiphany of using ABBR for 
storing both human and ISO dates came about mainly because of the fact 
that the original OBJECT has such poor support in Safari. Where was the 
"I won't let their laziness/stubbornness stand in the way of progress" 
attitude back then? Simply marketshare, I guess...

> I'd also like to point out one of the beauties of the proposed 
> title-design-pattern: it's completely backwards compatible with the 
> abbr-design-pattern.

That was indeed the idea behind generalising it, yes.

> I'd be interested in hearing if anyone else feels as strongly as I do 
> that the title-design-pattern is something that should codified as soon 
> as possible.

I'd raise my hand, but you guessed that already, didn't you?

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list