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

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> 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.

+1, that's what I'd like.

Best regards,
Niklas


> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 16:26:37 UTC