[uf-discuss] human readable date parsing

Scott Reynen scott at randomchaos.com
Thu May 3 14:50:16 PDT 2007

On May 3, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:

>> and is not apparent to human readers
> To be clear, this clause, in the absolute, is undesirable.  That  
> is, in
> following the principles of microformats, the date needs to be at  
> least
> somewhat *visible* to humans, rather than invisible.

I think it's important to be clear about this and I find "the date  
needs to be at least somewhat *visible* to humans" still very  
ambiguous, as the responses so far seem to suggest.  *Which* date are  
you talking about?  The human-readable date obviously needs to be  
human-readable, but are you including the machine-readable date  
here?  If so, which microformats principle suggests this?  Designing  
for humans first suggests to me that we should give humans human- 
readable dates and keep the machine-readable dates for machines.  I  
think this is what human readers generally prefer, and it must be  
what human publishers prefer, or we wouldn't have any need for the  
abbr design pattern in the first place.


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list