- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:12:11 -0800
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:39, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On 11/18/2011 03:28 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu >> <mailto:tantek@cs.stanford.edu>> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> To help fill out the "Details" section of this proposal, I have worked >> with Tantek and others to provide a patch: >> >> http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6826&to=6828 >> <http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6826&to=6828> >> >> I propose this as the resolution to this issue. > > That patch introduces changes that are outside of the scope of the issue > that you cited Hi Sam, in speaking with the editor and others on IRC it was noted to me that the unofficial issue I'd raised a while ago (on the WHATWG Time element page) regarding impedance matching of the new to HTML5 date time <input> elements and the <time> element was considered worthy of addressing. Thus I should officially/explicitly note a fourth related issue: 4. Enhance the time element to fully represent the date time types that the input element can capture. Most of these are also covered by issue 1, with the exception of year-week only dates and thus this is a delta issue from that issue with a corresponding delta change proposal: http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/time_input_match I've specifically raised this as a separate issue and change proposal because it was *not* included among the time element features discussed at the recent f2f. I cannot claim any degree of consensus on this issue in the working group, either in the context of the recent f2f or in general, and thus wanted to note it separately. > and inconsistent with at least one of the two other change > proposals that Tantek cited. In particular, Tantek proposed the following: > > Provide one or more examples that show use with microformats, > microdata, and RDFa, without preferring one over another. Prefer use > of openly developed vocabularies/URLs (e.g. microformats.org, > whatwg.org, w3.org) rather than those developed by one company (or > just a few companies) like schema.org. > > If the group decides to treat this all as one issue, we can go that way, but > unless we have consensus, we will need a Change Proposal that matches the > proposed change. I believe the full set of four change proposals that I have listed at: http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik#change_proposals now cover the edits that the editor is proposing. I will also note that there have been additional contributions to the data element change proposal Rationale[1] by Tab Atkins that attempt to document advantages of the data element over other proposed alternatives (e.g. a global value/content/itempropvalue attribute). I hope that documentation helps us reach consensus. I think we should move for a call for consensus / counter-proposals on those four change proposals at this time. Thanks, Tantek [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/data_element#Rationale -- http://tantek.com/ - I made an HTML5 tutorial! http://tantek.com/html5
Received on Saturday, 19 November 2011 01:13:30 UTC