[uf-discuss] ISO Dates and Durations using Style
martin at weborganics.co.uk
Sun Sep 28 17:19:43 PDT 2008
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> Martin McEvoy wrote:
>> One question what is actually wrong with using an extension eg:
>> <span class="bday" style="-uf-content:'1968-01-04';">4th Jan,
>> apart from the CSS validation issues, which when you compare it with
>> the current <abbr> and @title accessibility issues doesn't seem so
>> bad to me?
> The only direct accessibility issue I can think of is that if you had
> a tool that stripped out styling information before presentation to a
> user who needed to apply their own formatting, the data would be
> stripped along with the presentational suggestions.
> There are a couple more indirect considerations:
> 1. Encouraging non-conforming code could produce more mistakes;
> without a quality control process, mistakes are less likely to be
> noticed when they only affect users with certain disabilities.
yes this too....
> 2. It would constitute a barrier of adoption to publishers aiming to
> produce webpages that conform to accessibility guidelines that require
> conforming or even just valid CSS and reduce the benefits of such
> microformats reaching users with disabilities via sites designed to be
> usable for them. For example, a page using this syntax probably could
> not pass WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 3.2 ("Create documents that validate to
> published formal grammars.") and therefore could not pass at the
> Priority 2 level.
Nicely said thank you very informative absolutely correct also.
> These issues are by no means as significant as the accessibility
> problems with abbr and title.
the lesser of the two evils so to speak.. :-)
> But in terms of what is wrong with it more generally, this solution is
> every bit as non-conforming (though not quite as risky) as an HTML
> custom attribute, with the additional ugliness of putting required
> data into a layer intended for optional presentational suggestions.
even if they are just presentational suggestions for a parser? because
this is practically what the abbr pattern does using @title? where would
I put that data then? if I were copying popular usage patterns that data
would be in the head in a meta tag referenced in some meaningful way
(how I don't know), but instead it seems (to me) that I have to take
that data and place it in the content hidden in @title a cool trick! I
guess that's why microformats are referred to quite often now as
"hacky". This is just my though so don't jump up and down, I am known to
think a little out of the box, microformats can overcome their issues if
they just accept one thing machine data belongs in the head of a
document, not in the content were it currently is.
> Given that HTML custom attributes are a non-starter for microformats
> because they build on existing standards, I can't see how this
> proposal is going to gain any traction.
It wasn't really a proposal of any kind I am just cycling through the
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss