Re: Current state of ISSUE-141

For the records: the reference to the EARL report is here:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2012/CR-implementation-report-20120503/

I am in complete agreement with the assessment and I am o.k. closing the issue and updating the spec. (Note that whether the spec is updated accordingly before or after the FPWD should be left to the discretion of the editors.)

Thanks

Ivan

On Aug 13, 2012, at 19:47 , Gregg Kellogg wrote:

> 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
> 
> 


----
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 Tuesday, 14 August 2012 11:49:08 UTC