W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2011

[Bug 13240] Consider replacing <time> with <data>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:38:52 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Qn7sa-000688-B0@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240

--- Comment #17 from Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> 2011-07-30 11:38:50 UTC ---
After https://plus.google.com/105458233028934590147/posts/Tmh8uzpGM9j I would
actually agree that itemval is a bad idea, in particular because of the
confusing nature of something like <img src=foo itemprop=img itemval=bar>. It
would also make itemValue reflection a bit funky, you'd really have to look at
the definition in order to understand which attribute it maps to.

As for the use cases:

 - pubdate can be relegated to data-pubdate for the <10 people in the world who
want to export HTML to Atom.

 - HTMLTimeElement.valueAsDate isn't very useful anyway.

 - Has the microformat community expressed any interest in moving away from
HTML4?

If microdata is the only serious use case, then machineval="" seems a poor
attribute name. <data value="se">Sweden</data> is better IMO, mirroring <option
value="se">Sweden</option>. There's no reason to allow <data>Sweden</data> at
all, so itemValue could always reflect the value attribute, as opposed to
HTMLTimeElement.itemValue which behaves either as .dateTime or .textContent.

(Note that Opera is still "not ecstatic" about dropping <time>, I'm just trying
to see the alternatives.)

-- 
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 Saturday, 30 July 2011 11:38:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:14 UTC