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

noted 3 issues re: time/data (was Re: minutes for HTML WG f2f, 2011-11-04, part 1)

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:07:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOACb=JB37MDmJ_uYq=UYoPXt0K=f4yp8DPARFR1+bSntdia6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 19:01, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 11/05/11 8:58 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>>>
>>> From the minutes:
>>
>>> PC: there is further dialog
>>>  ... there is a call for change proposals closing today, Nov 4.
>>
>> I just saw this and likely need another day or two.
>
> The minutes have two lines out of order.  That comment was meant to apply to
> issue 180, which had a call for proposals which closed yesterday:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Oct/0028.html

Thanks for the clarification Sam. Appreciated.


>> I've been drafting
>> a change proposal this past week to add back the enhanced time (as
>> shown this past Thursday at 11:30) and have continued to update it
>> with details (the core functionality is unchanged from what was
>> proposed, since the specific feature set had consensus without
>> objections from those that advocated keeping<time>)
>>
>> Here is the URL to the living change proposal to re-add an enhanced
>> time element:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/time_element
>
> Given that there has been a revert request, the next step will be to
> identify one or more issues.  Based on the sense of the room, and the
> direction you are taking, it may make sense to split apart the discussion of
> keep/remove/improve the time element and the discussion about adding a data
> element.
>
> The right next step here is to identify one or more issue are.  Once that is
> done, there will be a minimum of 30 days given to allow proposals to be
> created.

And thanks for helping explain the next steps. I see three issues
which are semi-related but can be semi-independently addressed.

1. Reintroduction of the enhanced time element. Use-cases/needs have
been demonstrated for an enhanced time element and thus we should add
it.
http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/time_element

2. Introduction of the data element. There are enough use-cases of the
general class of human vs. machine data publishing that justify a
simple data element for use with microformats, microdata, RDFa.
http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/data_element

3. Drop pubdate attribute. The pubdate attribute is a vestigial piece
of markup left-over from the attempt to provide automatic HTML5 to
Atom conversion, and in practice is either not used, or typically used
in conjunction with the hAtom microformat which doesn't supersets its
functionality.

Sam, your guidance as to how best document/progress these three issues
is appreciated.


>> I'd like to also see the<data>  element introduced - there are
>> numerous additional uses in microformats for a generic<data>  element
>> and we can use it over time to gather data on what other (if any)
>> specific elements we could use in the future (rather than
>> hypothesizing too many up front). There was also rough consensus in
>> the HTML WG f2f *for* adding a data element.
>
> There was rough consensus of the participants in the f2f, but by policy we
> allow asynchronous participation via mailing list.

And I very much appreciate that policy myself. My note was simply to
confirm/note on-record of the rough f2f consensus.


>> Here is the URL to the living change proposal to add a data element:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/data_element
>>
>> I'll probably need another day or so to have reasonable draft change
>> proposals though each has a reasonable outline at this point.
>>
>> Comments and suggestions for improvements welcome for both change
>> proposals.
>
> I will note that there is one concern that has been identified with the
> definition of the data element as currently specified:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240#c72
>
> See the last paragraph in that comment.  Given the sentiment in the room in
> the F2F, if that concern can be addressed and no other concerns are voiced,
> it occurs to me that we could move this forward quickly with a Call for
> Consensus.  Should anybody object, we would give those who do an opportunity
> to produce counter proposals.

I agree with the noted issue in the last paragraph in that comment. I
think it makes sense to provide examples that are either theoretical
with example.com, or make use of well-established/adopted open
community resources (or both). Additional a variety of syntax examples
(microformats, microdata, RDFa, microformats-2) would also be
reasonable.

Thanks,

Tantek

-- 
http://tantek.com/ - I made an HTML5 tutorial! http://tantek.com/html5
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 17:08:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:41 GMT