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

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

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:52:21 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RN2Cz-00089O-Ro@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #75 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 2011-11-06 12:52:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #74)
> (In reply to comment #73)
> > Can that be split into smaller issues?
> Yes, I guess most of the discussion has been about the data element and the
> time element so maybe:
> "Should HTML5 have a time element"
> "Should HTML5 have a data element"
> This does not really cover the pubdate attribute or the atom conversion
> section. But on the other hand I don't really object to removing them.

If somebody would like to advocate the removal of pubdate, we would need a
Change Proposal.  The question here is whether that should be handled
separately from one of those two issues, or can be combined.

The Atom conversion has not been a part of the W3C HTML spec for quite some


> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0586.html
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/att-0218/issue-76-decision.html
> My issue with the schema.org examples could be handled as a counter-proposal if
> someone tries to re-introduce them in the spec ( after the revert ).

Tantek has begun work on such a change proposal:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Nov/0026.html =>

If the people interested in this topic can work together and a single Change
Proposal emerges, we can issue a Call for Consensus on that proposal.  If a
common proposal can't be reached, we will issue a call for Counter Proposals.

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 Sunday, 6 November 2011 12:52:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:22 UTC