- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:55:28 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@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 UTC