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

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

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:37:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CADjV5jegDi8gQXHLa_i8719AgFmqWee3bNzhOLMvEpSb1_fUQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
2011/11/11 Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>:
> Niklas,
>
> On 11 Nov 2011, at 15:55, Niklas Lindström wrote:
>> 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. ;)
>
>
> xsd:gMonth and xsd:gDay aren't ambiguous. Months have the format --MM, so November is "--11" whereas days have the format ---DD so the 11th day of each month is "---11".

I should have checked those too of course. I stand corrected. :)

> As I said in the mail I just sent, I don't know which subset of formats will be supported by the new <time> element.

Yes, I agree (also with Ivan). The <time> spec should define what is
to be supported.

Best regards,
Niklas


> Jeni
> --
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
>
>
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 16:38:44 GMT

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