- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:47:24 -0400
- To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Last week I took on an action to summarize the current state of ISSUE-141 "How many of the possible datatypes for @datetime should be supported?" In the 2011-11-17 telecon [1], the WG resolved to express the intention to follow the time element discussion for subsequent datatypes. In the 2012-05-03 telecon [3], the WG resolved to support additional datatypes gYear. gYearMonth and duration. The WG also resolved to process the text contents of <time> in the absense of @datetime. The RDFa test suite has tests specifically to look for @datetime values for xsd:date, xsd:time, xsd:dateTime, xsd:duration, xsd:gYear, and xsd:gYearMonth. Furthermore, consistent with HTML5, the test suite tests for the value of the element being any of these datatypes (e.g. 0275). The EARL report [3], shows 3/4 processors passing these tests (librdfa was the holdout). I believe we can close this issue as resolved, and that the spec should be updated accordingly. Gregg [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-11-17#resolution_1 [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2012-05-03#resolution_3 [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2012-05-03#resolution_4
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 17:48:02 UTC