W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Clarify datetime rule in 3.1 Additional RDFa Processing Rules

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:29:15 -0400
Message-ID: <513E84EB.9@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-rdfa-wg <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 03/10/2013 05:21 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> Also, we have to determine whether the @datetime attribute actually 
> has been renamed to @dateTime? Where is the reference to this 
> decision, and is there any draft of HTML5 incorporating it? As it was
> explained, the reason for the renaming was said to be because that's
> what it's named in HTML4 and XHTML 1.1 (used on the ins and del
> elements). But that does not seem to be true [1], [2].

I don't know where all these dirty rumors started, but let's see if we
can dispel them. :P

Looking at the current HTML Living Standard spec:

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#attr-time-datetime

The HTML <time> element has a content attribute called "datetime" (all
lower-case). The HTMLTimeElement DOM interface has an IDL attribute
called "dateTime". This is what is going to be fed into the HTML5 W3C spec.

The same is true for the latest HTML5 W3C Nightly:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/text-level-semantics.html#the-time-element

The HTML+RDFa 1.1 processing rule extensions depend on the content
attribute and not the ID attribute. The former has not changed in a long
time (if ever), I verified this with Hixie:

http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20130312#l-71

The IDL attribute did change from "datetime" to "dateTime" recently, you
can see this in the December 2012 version of the W3C spec:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-html5-20121217/text-level-semantics.html#the-time-element

The change was made to bring the IDL attribute in line with ins and del.

None of these changes affect the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification, so we're
clear for PR on this front.

> I find this change to HTML5 quite disconcerting. (Might there have 
> been a miscommunication? Perhaps the renaming was in the DOM API? If
>  it's called `dateTime` in the DOM, that's an entirely different 
> matter, which does not concern this spec.)

It was renamed to dateTime in the DOM interface, and yes, it doesn't
concern this spec. :)

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals
http://manu.sporny.org/2013/payswarm-journals/
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 01:29:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:58 UTC