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

Feedback about pubdate=""

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:49:10 +0000 (UTC)
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908310637570.6775@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:38:42 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > I haven't removed pubdate="" yet. I don't know what to replace it with:
> >
> >    <article pubdate="2009-01-13">...</article>
> >
> > ...becoming:
> >
> >    <time pubdate datetime="2009-01-13">...</time>
> >
> > ...doesn't seem like a win.
> 
> The common format seems to be to have the date somewhere inline the 
> article so not having to duplicate that information seems like a win to 
> me.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Jeremy Keith wrote:
> 
> [...further arguments along the same lines...]

Fair enough. I've removed pubdate from <article> and added it on <time> 
instead, and updated the relevant bits.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 07:47:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:51 UTC