W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 2011

[Bug 13240] Consider replacing <time> with <data>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:55:28 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RLcDw-0002gA-2B@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240

--- Comment #58 from Chris Dary <umbrae@gmail.com> 2011-11-02 14:55:27 UTC ---
Just to add to the "<time> being used in production" cases..

We at Readability have been recommending <time> as the element to use to best
describe an article's publication date since February:
http://www.readability.com/publishers/guidelines

I don't have any statistics on how many publishers have followed these
guidelines, but it's certainly non-zero. 

I have other, more personal reasons to dislike this change (approachability of
a generic <data> element to relatively new developers vs the very clear <time>
element, etc), but on a logical level, I can say that it will make our job as a
scraper a good deal harder in the future, particularly with the ambiguity of
using class as the attribute to distinguish a data element. <time>, replete
with the pubdate attribute, is as unambiguous as it gets.

To be fair, we deal with terrible markup on a daily basis, so we'll be handling
all sorts of uninformed markup anyway. But the clarity found in <time> with
pubdate is something that would be very nice to have.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 14:55:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 November 2011 14:55:33 GMT