[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
It might even make an interesting test to see what date format was more
accurately readable to more readers world wide, e.g.
More information about the microformats-discuss