- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:58:50 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240
Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i
| |ua.no
--- Comment #39 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-10-12 11:58:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> I'm definitely leaning towards doing this. The alternative seems to be to have
> a whole slew of elements for this kind of thing:
>
> <time datetime="2010-10-10">
> <number value=10>
> <scalar value=10 unit=kg>
> <duration value="1h10m2.2s">
> <timerange start="2010-01-01" end="2010-02-02">
> <enum value="spring">
>
> ...all of which pretty much do exactly the same thing: nothing.
My immediate thought was that <data> would have to take different attributes -
which could even be empty/boolean-ish, and which would be used depending on the
kind of data:
<data datetime="2010-10-10">10th of October</data>
<data datetime="">10th of October</data>
<data scalar=10 unit=kg>
Or, eventually - in case of a generic @value attribute - some kind of kind/type
attribute to indicate the kind of data:
<data kind=time value="2010-10-10">10th of October</data>
The only trouble I see is that we are then approaching <object> - in a
literal/syntactic way:
<object type=time data="2010-10-10">10th of October</object>
And since object@data takes URLs, perhasp time as a URI is also a thought:
http://www.annodex.net/TR/draft-pfeiffer-temporal-fragments-03.html
http://placetime.com/instant/gregorian/
Was differentiated attributes part of your thinking behind <data>, Mr Editor?
--
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 Wednesday, 12 October 2011 11:58:53 UTC