[uf-discuss] human readable date parsing

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Thu May 3 15:51:45 PDT 2007

On 5/3/07 10:48 AM, "victor jalencas" <victor at carotena.net> wrote:

> On 03/05/07, Patrick H. Lauke <redux at splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>> Tantek Çelik wrote:
>>> 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.
>> But not the machine-readable part,

No.  microformats should not be encouraging *any* invisible data, because
invisible data = inaccurate data.

> if it makes no sense to the human reader.

Plenty of people can read and make sense of ISO dates.

> Exactly.  I was still referring to the machine readable format. I
> don't think the human readable part causes many problems veing
> visible, not even to the machine.

Human readable to one culture/language is not necessarily human readable to
other cultures/languages.

It might even make an interesting test to see what date format was more
accurately readable to more readers world wide, e.g.




for example.


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list