- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:00:35 +0200
On Mar 5, 2009, at 13:33, jim at eatyourgreens.org.uk wrote: > Is <time> then like <address> in HTML 4? ie. intended for certain > dates only, just as <address> may not be used to mark up all > addresses? Yes, in the sense that <time> is designed for contemporary secular civilian use cases. (If someone uses the (Common-Era) proleptic Gregorian calendar calendar for other use cases, (s)he gets a fortuitous free ride.) > In that case, the spec should be clear on correct and incorrect > usage, with examples of both to guide authors. Indeed: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6536 > Bruce Lawson uses <time> to mark up the dates of blog posts in the > HTML5 version of his wordpress templates. Is this incorrect usage of > HTML5? It's not incorrect, as currently drafted, but it's most likely not useful. > If not, how should HTML5 blog templates work when the blog is dated > from 1665 (http://pepysdiary.com) or 1894 (http://www.cosmicdiary1894.blogspot.com/)? If a blogger backdates posts in a way that doesn't fit the (Common- Era) proleptic Gregorian calendar, (s)he shouldn't use <time>. Note that currently http://www.cosmicdiary1894.blogspot.com/ shows the real posting date in Blogger's date field and the backdated date as text in a heading and neither has any kind of microformat markup. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 04:00:35 UTC