Remember that photo? Yes, its the one Gizmodo used to say I looked stupid. Not that I hold grudges against journalistic outfits, because Gizmodo writers aren't journalists. Whoa, that wasn't in the draft.

@georgiecel

But I digress. Earlier this week, I wrote about HTML5 removing support for the date metadata attribute. I theorised it had something to do with date being ambiguous without further context, but didn't pursue it further.

Sydney web guru @georgiecel replies:

@Rubenerd Hey Ruben, read your blog post — personally, I have been using <time datetime="2014-02-19"> for schema microdata since 2012 :)

Thank you for your readership ^_^. Aside from employing RDFa Lite instead, I do the same thing under most circumstances (more on that in a moment). I've had my reservations about HTML5, but semantic elements like this are really quite nice. The less abuse of the <abbr> element, the better.

In addition to these date elements, I've also used HTML date metadata in page <head> areas to denote the last build date for a site. Perhaps a better alternative is Schema data here too. If so, it strikes me weird that we still have generic HTML metadata like keyword and description, when date is no longer valid.

As for times (hah) when we can't use <time>, it unfortunately doesn't jive with my beloved microformats. I'd write an hCalendar task to remind myself to research this futher, but the date wouldn't be parsed. At least, not at present.

@zoomosis

And finally, @zoomosis reminded me of something slightly embarrasing:

@Rubenerd You misspelled deprecated on your blog, fwiw.

I've been reading that word in documentation since primary school, and I still spell it "depracation". That and I still call my shoulders my elbows, and vice versa. Old habits don't die hard, they stick around to make me look even more stupid than my writing here would suggest ;).