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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:56:31 -0500
Message-ID: <4EBC104F.6050108@intertwingly.net>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 11/10/2011 12:07 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>
> 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.

The split seems fine with me.  Your use of tenses is inconsistent, you 
talk about reintroduction of time, the introduction of data, and 
dropping pubdate; the baseline should be the document as it exists after 
the revert request is applied, so the first issue should talk about 
changes to the time element that will lead to greater consensus.

Your characterizations as to whether the use cases are sufficient or not 
should go into the proposals themselves, these are not conclusions that 
the working group has yet reached.

At the F2F there was a strong objection to the time element, but 
subsequently the person who objected seems to have reconsidered.

There are a number of objections to the data element (objections spotted 
so far: spec text favoring Microdata over RDFa and questioning the need 
to add an element that has zero semantics and complete overlap with the 
span element).  If possible, consider addressing these objections in the 
Change Proposal and trying to see if we can find consensus.

I have yet to hear any objections to dropping the pubdate attribute.  If 
there is a proposal to do so, and we don't receive any counter 
proposals, we can issue a call for consensus on this matter.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 17:56:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:28 UTC