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

Re: Looking at the time element (again) (ISSUE-97)

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:54:15 -0600
Message-ID: <4EBBE597.904@aptest.com>
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
What if it matches none of them?

On 11/10/2011 8:52 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> In my version of the proposals, I perform lexical analysis of @datetime against xsd:date, xsd:dateTime and xsd:time and choose the datatype based on the match. It's quite simple.
>
> Gregg Kellogg
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 4:48 AM, "Ivan Herman"<ivan@w3.org>  wrote:
>
>> Now that<time>  seems to be back into the picture, I have looked at ISSUE-97 again[1].
>>
>> The issue, as raised by Stéphane, proposes to understand the '@datetime' property of the<time>  element. Essentially, if the source contains this:
>>
>> <time property="something" datetime="2009-05-10">May 10th 2009</time>
>>
>> we should, implicitly, consider this as being
>>
>> <time property="something" datetime="2009-05-10" content="2009-05-10">May 10th 2009</time>
>>
>> and then let the core RDFa processing go. That is of course easy.
>>
>> However... do we want to add a datatype to this? One would think so, but then we get to a very slippery slope. Which datatype? Looking at
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#date
>>
>> we do have quite a lot of possibilities... There is of course xsd:dateTime (this is what Stéphane used in his original mail for the issue). This would mean the transformation of the<time>  element into:
>>
>> <time property="something" datetime="2009-05-10" content="2009-05-10T00:00:00-00:00" datatype="xsd:dateTime">May 10th 2009</time>
>>
>> but there are a bunch of others, like gYear, gYearMonth, etc.
>>
>> Personally, I would propose to use xsd:dateTime only. But that has to be decided by the group.
>>
>> However, nothing with time is simple... If the author puts in the whole ISO format, then are of course fine. But I would expect that in the vast majority of cases the hour and minute and the others will all be missing. Is it all right to just add the 0 hour, as Stéphane did it? Again, I can live with that, but this is something to be decided and known for interoperability reasons...
>>
>> Minor things, but should be cast in stone:-)
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/97
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 14:54:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:18 GMT