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

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:44:50 +0100
Cc: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <23C141E2-0EB7-4FB0-9AC5-D595D64DCA8E@w3.org>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>

On Nov 11, 2011, at 17:38 , Gregg Kellogg wrote:

> 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.

Unfortunately, that is where we are.


> At best, we should have a statement that the HTML+RDFa spec will follow the HTML spec with regards to <data> and <time>.

Yes

> My own processor understands date, time, dateTime and duration. Adding support for gYear, gYearMonth and gMonthDay would be straightforward.

I do not have duration, but have all the others:-)

Ivan

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


----
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 17:42:29 GMT

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