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

On Nov 11, 2011, at 16:55 , Niklas Lindström wrote:
[snip]

> 
> I fully agree.
> 
> Note that we already have element awareness for RDFa in (X)HTML: the
> base element is treated (very) specially, as is head and body
> (implying @about). Thus special processing of the content of <time> in
> HTML should be quite ok.
> 
> I also think we should consider whether xsd:gYear, xsd:gYearMonth and
> xsd:gMonthDay can be captured as well (since years less than 1000 must
> be padded with leading zeros [1]). Of course, xsd:gMonth and xsd:gDay
> are too ambiguous, as today's date so amply indicates. ;)
> 

I have just gone through the HTML5 specification for my own implementation, notably the microsyntax specification for time:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/common-microsyntaxes.html#dates-and-times

my reading is that they accept datetime, date, and time, and that the syntax requirements for those are the 'standard', ie, ISO one. But I may have missed something there. But, if this is so then, actually, we could even choose to reject any @datetime value that does not parse according to those rules (I am not saying we should do it, I think outputting a plain literal is fine). In other words, I am not sure it is worth going to all the different additional types. We should keep to what the HTML5 doc says.

Ivan



> Best regards,
> Niklas
> 
> [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#nt-gYearRep
> 
> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>>> --
>>> Toby A Inkster
>>> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
>>> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 


----
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 Friday, 11 November 2011 16:05:14 UTC