[uf-discuss] The BBC case and HTML5 <time>
hsivonen at iki.fi
Sun Jun 29 23:55:18 PDT 2008
On Jun 29, 2008, at 15:18, Frances Berriman wrote:
> The BBC can't use HTML5. It won't validate,
HTML5 validates (in the present tense) at http://html5.validator.nu/
Moreover, if validation causes you to emit user experience-degrading
markup in violation if the intended language semantics*, validation
isn't helping but hurting you.
(* Let's be honest: abbr wasn't designed to expand "one hour ago" to
an ISO date with a crufty "T" separator and time zone designators and
> it doesn't adhere to their standards and guidelines or
If they are willing to consider amending their guidelines to allow
RDFa, which is also invalid HTML 4.01/XHTML 1.0/XHTML 1.1, surely they
*could* choose to amend their own guidelines to allow <time>.
> their browser support levels.
I thought the point was that they don't want the markup for
microformat datetimes to be UI-sensitive in legacy browsers (or browser
> A core principle of microformats is that they should work with the
> technologies available and in use *now* (HTML5 isn't widely supported
> and isn't even a w3c recommendation yet).
Wouldn't it make sense, though, to specify that <time> be supported as
an alternative to <abbr> in hCalendar datetimes, so that when the
community becomes comfortable with publishing HTML5 content, the
installed base of parsers would already be there?
On Jun 29, 2008, at 20:39, Toby A Inkster wrote:
On Jun 30, 2008, at 02:11, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> I'd be wary of using a hybrid of HTML 4.01, RDfa, and HTML5 when
> neither RDFa nor HTML5 have been finalized yet, and when HTML5 is
> going to determine how browsers actually parse all text/html. What
> if HTML5 ends up specifying something in a way that is incompatible
> with the hybrid?
HTML 5 spec section maturity is very much driven by implementation
maturity. The microformats community can make the format of the <time>
element stable by shipping a bazillion interoperable hCalendar parsers
implementing the way <time> is drafted.
On Jun 30, 2008, at 03:49, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> We are specifically advised by the W3C QA Group that custom DTDs are
> a bad idea.
More to the point, DTDs are a bad idea. You can use custom RELAX NG
without polluting you markup with schema-specific declaration cruft at http://validator.nu/
hsivonen at iki.fi
More information about the microformats-discuss