[uf-discuss] human readable date parsing

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Thu May 3 15:51:47 PDT 2007

On 5/3/07 2:50 PM, "Scott Reynen" <scott at randomchaos.com> wrote:

> 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?

Visible data.

> Designing  
> for humans first suggests to me that we should give humans human-
> readable dates and keep the machine-readable dates for machines.

Making dates machine readable does not preclude making them at least
*somewhat* visible.

> 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.

The abbr design pattern balanced the visible data being the most human
readable, and the somewhat visible (title attribute, visible only as a
tooltip typically) data being the more machine readable version.

No version of the data should be encourage to be invisible as it will simply
become inaccurate as a result.


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list