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 10:33:19 -0600
Message-ID: <4EBBFCCF.100@aptest.com>
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
I am okay with this.  However, as I mentioned on the call today, RDFa is 
about attributes.  To the extent that there is an attribute named 
@datetime that we want to parse, my processor will happily process it.  
I can add whatever rules we want.  But are we proposing that this be 
part of RDFa Core?  Or only in HTML+RDFa?  I think it should be in 
Core.  And if it is in Core, then I think it should just apply to the 
attribute regardless of what element it appears on.  If some other 
elements wants to allow @datetime (e.g. the old ins element), who are we 
to judge?

On 11/10/2011 10:25 AM, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 16:33:45 GMT

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