W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: The cite and pubdate attributes

From: Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:00:20 +0100
Message-Id: <E2516A8C-CC9A-4555-8CD9-F1506F5B9592@adactio.com>
To: HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
I suggested:
> Both those examples include two instances of the <time> element, but
> in each case it should be possible to distinguish the publication date
> (2009-07-30) from the other date mentioned (1989-07-01) because only
> the publication date was contained by a <header> or <footer>.

And Jim responded:
> Too fragile.
>
> <header>
> <h1>My Brother's Wedding:
>    <time datetime="2008-07-04">4th of July 2008</time></h1>
> <p>Pictures of the bridal party and the reception fireworks</p>
> </header>

True enough.

I guess I've still got my microformats thinking cap on where solving  
80% of the use cases is considered a success. In a markup spec, that  
really needs to be close to 100%, doesn't it?

Still, I'd rather solve the problem (as outlined by Chaals) with  
visible content rather than hidden metadata.

What if @pubdate were a Boolean attribute to be applied to a TIME  
element rather than a name/value pair applied to ARTICLE?

So instead of....

<article pubdate="2009-07-30">
   <header>
     <h2><a href="blah" rel="bookmark">Accessibility of HTML5 video</ 
a></h2>
     <time datetime="2009-07-30">Thursday 30 July 2009</time>
   </header>
   <p>Brilliantly witty, incisive prose, in a gloriously elegiac style  
reminiscent of <cite>Cider With Rosie</cite>.</p>
</article>

....we get:

<article>
   <header>
     <h2><a href="blah" rel="bookmark">Accessibility of HTML5 video</ 
a></h2>
     <time datetime="2009-07-30" pubdate>Thursday 30 July 2009</time>
   </header>
   <p>Brilliantly witty, incisive prose, in a gloriously elegiac style  
reminiscent of <cite>Cider With Rosie</cite>.</p>
</article>

That would still leave one problem which is how user agents should  
deal with multiple instances of TIME elements with @pubdate attributes  
within an ARTICLE (though I imagine that kind of authoring could be  
considered non-conforming).

Thoughts?

Jeremy

-- 
Jeremy Keith

a d a c t i o

http://adactio.com/
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 12:15:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT