[uf-discuss] [rethinking abbr] Does <object> deserve another look?

Karl Dubost karl at w3.org
Mon Apr 30 19:42:06 PDT 2007

Le 1 mai 2007 à 09:53, James Craig a écrit :
> The main problem, as I understood it, is that "object[data]"  
> expects a URI, even if it doesn't know how to handle it, so the  
> first suggestion is actually requesting the relative path "./ 
> 20050125" which causes extra junk 404s (Ex. 1; not necessarily a  
> bug). Some UAs even requested relative paths for anchored resources  
> in the page as with the object include-pattern (Ex. 2; probably a  
> bug and definitely a reason to ditch it).
> 1. <object class="dtstart" data="20050125">January 25</object>
> 2. <object class="include" data="#foo"></object>

See what has been done in ["duri" and "tdb" URN namespaces based on  
dated URIs][1]

Then let's see if it is possible to do something like.

<object class="dtstart"
         data="urn:date:2005-01-25">January 25</object>

It could be easily defined at IETF.

And I wonder about
<a class="dtstart"
    href="urn:date:2005-01-25">January 25</a>

[1]: http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html#dates

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list