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: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:12:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOACb=Lrqkf=o=efmcqG49TXSG_yaj4h15NTo+5J6uCMmX0m4A@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

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