[uf-discuss] Re: Precise Expansion Patterns

Paul Wilkins pmw57 at xtra.co.nz
Sun Dec 16 19:35:11 PST 2007

On Dec 17, 2007 2:38 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> By constricting DURATION to have a restrictive format, HH:MM:SS, we are
> being short-sighted and are not thinking about the other Microformats
> that are still to come that will need to specify DURATION.
> "00:02:23" is being shortsighted. Let's learn from our past and not make
> the same mistake again... let's not be short-sighted about this decision.

If we stay with "PT2M23S" then how are we going to deal with the title
attribute issues.
Are they to be put up with, or do we lay "PT2M23S" side by side with
the appropriate duration.

With the ABBR element it's considered to be invalid if it's empty

I consider the following to be bad
    <abbr class="duration" title="PT2M23S"></abbr>2:23

Next we have the classical abbr-include-pattern.

This has issues in that the title is not an acceptable abbreviation of
2:23. The title text must be sensible to the human viewer.
    <abbr class="duration" title="PT2M23S">2:23</abbr>

Then there's the SPAN element. This one too has issues with the title
text, in that anybody seeing it isn't likely to understand its
    <span class="duration" title="PT2M23S">2:23</span>

It appears that when the title text is used on content, it must must
remain as a human-understandable construct.

The SPAN element however has classically been allowed to be empty, as
a placeholder for the likes of css images.
This situation can be leveraged to provide computer data, without
interfering with the content itself.

I consider the following to be less bad than the others above.
    <span class="duration" title="PT2M23S"></span>2:23

It still has a few issues, but I consider it to be better than the
others that have been available.

-- Paul Wilkins

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list