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

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

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:38:28 -0500
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79784ECB-8EA9-49DC-8194-09B5A59F7E6C@greggkellogg.net>
On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:

> 
> 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.

As Jeni noted, <time> is likely to change further, probably based on Tantek's input: http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/time_element. This includes support for other date formats including duration. Unfortunately, the wiki does not describe these formats in terms of XSD; hopefully the HTML5 spec will reference the appropriate XSD sections so that it's clear that the formats are canonical.

Unfortunately, much like RDFa, HTML5 is still in a state of flux, at least in this regard. That make's it premature to firmly specify any behavior. At best, we should have a statement that the HTML+RDFa spec will follow the HTML spec with regards to <data> and <time>. My own processor understands date, time, dateTime and duration. Adding support for gYear, gYearMonth and gMonthDay would be straightforward.

I also agree that, in the absence of @datetime, the <time> element's text value should be used instead.

Gregg

> 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 16:39:25 GMT

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