W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Suggestion/question for improving datePublished example schema.org

From: Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:44:44 +0000
Message-ID: <52B8141C.40202@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org, aaranged@gmail.com, wsspoelstra@gmail.com
Hi,

The choice between <meta> and <time> is simply one of whether you're 
using XHTML or HTML5.

<time> is a new element invented for HTML5. It does not exist in XHTML1 
or HTML4 or below. So if your webpage doctype is HTML5 then use the 
<time> element because it's the correct semantic element to use when 
displaying dates or times. If your webpage doctype is not HTML5 then use 
the more generic <meta> element (or any other element that fits with the 
semantic structure of your document).  If you use the <time> element in 
a webpage with an HTML4/XHTML1 doctype then your markup will not 
validate and this could cause problems in some clients.

Additionally at some point in 2011 the <time> element was removed from 
the HTML5 draft specification, but was later reinstated. Some people 
providing Schema.org examples around that time may have used the <meta> 
element due to uncertainty about the future (no pun intended!) of the 
<time> element. Although the HTML5 specification is still a draft, the 
<time> element now seems to be secure as a part of it, so can be used in 
HTML5 with reasonable confidence.

Regards,

Paul

On 23/12/13 10:17, Willem-Siebe Spoelstra wrote:
>
> Hi Charles, great you agree with me on this, would be a good idea to 
> add it.
>
> Aaron, thanks for the schema.org <http://schema.org> link, they 
> explain it there very well, so I totally understand (since I actually 
> have the same question) you posted about that before. As far as I can 
> see nobody replied to your mail, am I right?
> I think it's good you made the question more specific when to use meta 
> and when to use time. However, I can not think of any example where I 
> should use meta, I think you can always use time...
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Willem-Siebe Spoelstra
>
>
> 2013/11/21 Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com <mailto:aaranged@gmail.com>>
>
>     There is indeed a fairly detailed discussion of the <time> tag and
>     datetime attribute on schema.org <http://schema.org>:
>     http://schema.org/docs/gs.html#advanced_dates
>
>     But as you point out Willem-Siebe, the examples use <meta> (I
>     raised this exact same issue over a year ago -
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0040.html.)
>
>     So I would agree that examples be aligned with the advice to use
>     <time>/datetime - but as per my earlier message, it would be
>     instructive to know when <meta> would be more appropriate than
>     <time>, and vice versa (though as in both cases the expected type
>     is date in ISO 8601 date format, so I don't understand why <time>
>     serves to "make dates unambiguous" for actual date values).
>
>
>     On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Willem-Siebe Spoelstra
>     <wsspoelstra@gmail.com <mailto:wsspoelstra@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hi all,
>
>         I posted a question about this topic here a while ago:
>         https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/webmasters/Xm5l4KFP9yg/vFZ5wIzGx6IJ
>         <https://productforums.google.com/forum/#%21msg/webmasters/Xm5l4KFP9yg/vFZ5wIzGx6IJ> (with
>         no reply/anwer).
>
>         On schema.org <http://schema.org> I find this example:
>
>         <metaitemprop="datePublished"content="2011-04-01">April 1, 2011
>
>         However, on w3.org <http://w3.org> I learn this:
>
>         <*time*  *itemprop="datePublished"*  *datetime="2009-08-30"*>yesterday</time>
>
>
>         I do think myself the last one is more appropriate HTML. Is it
>         an idea to put this to the list for improving the example on
>         schema.org <http://schema.org>?
>
>         Kind regards,
>
>         Willem-Siebe Spoelstra
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 23 December 2013 10:45:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:36 UTC