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

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

From: Willem-Siebe Spoelstra <wsspoelstra@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:47:19 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPGOeDvDHX-=3YcBf7UKtrCo4Uy2eK7ONeCYEdDtDJeW55pe6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, aaranged@gmail.com
Thanks Paul for you quick and good explenation!


2013/12/23 Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>

>  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 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>
>
>> There is indeed a fairly detailed discussion of the <time> tag and
>> datetime attribute on 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> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>  I posted a question about this topic here a while ago:
>>> https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/webmasters/Xm5l4KFP9yg/vFZ5wIzGx6IJ (with
>>> no reply/anwer).
>>>
>>>  On schema.org I find this example:
>>>
>>>  <meta itemprop="datePublished" content="2011-04-01">April 1, 2011
>>>
>>>  However, on 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?
>>>
>>>  Kind regards,
>>>
>>>  Willem-Siebe Spoelstra
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 23 December 2013 10:48:07 UTC

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