W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 2008

RE: Feed Validation Service: Dublin Core Terms extent does not accept units

From: Heather McCartney <Heather.McCartney@ioko.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:24:22 +0100
Message-ID: <69BDA7A26D2FA04C9228F8607181553C097F6F9B@intyodc01.uk.ioko365.com>
To: "Phil Ringnalda" <philringnalda@gmail.com>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>, <rubys@intertwingly.net>

Thanks Phil, that's an excellent explanation and very helpful!

Regards,

Heather

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Ringnalda [mailto:philringnalda@gmail.com] 
Sent: 07 July 2008 05:07
To: Heather McCartney
Cc: www-validator@w3.org; rubys@intertwingly.net
Subject: Re: Feed Validation Service: Dublin Core Terms extent does not
accept units

Heather McCartney wrote:
> I have a question about the validation of Dublin Core Terms extent
tag.
> Dublin Core guidance at
> http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/qualifiers.shtml#extent
says
> that "it generally consists of both a numeric value and a caption that
> is needed to interpret the numeric value". One of the valid examples
> given is "21 minutes". However, if I use this example in my rss feed,
> validation fails with the message
>
> "dcterms:extent must be a positive integer: 21 minutes".

The feedvalidator's knowledge of Dublin Core is based on the RSS 1.0 
modules at http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/dc/ and 
http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/dcterms/ - in part because that's likely

to be what someone writing a consumer of them in RSS will expect, and in

part because they are at least something which can be validated. Dublin 
Core's own description of elements is more like diffident advice to 
people who are writing profiles of it, or who are specifying elements 
which subset it. Probably the strongest advice about actual content is 
dc:date, where "Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme, 
such as the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF]." Not to use *that* 
encoding scheme, but to use an encoding scheme; not the thing to do, but

recommended best practice; not even an actual scheme, since W3CDTF is 
only intended to be used by other specs which are required to specify 
granularities and the meaning of different granularities if more than 
one is allowed (sadly, RSS 1.0 also failed to do so, but we sort of 
pretend it did, since that's the one Dublin Core element which is very 
widely used by RSS consumers).

So, while it's sort of frustrating that we have to use a dead "Proposed"

spec for RSS 1.0 to validate use of Dublin Core in RSS 2.0 or Atom so 
that we have any hope of promoting interop, it's the only alternative 
besides just doing absolutely no validation: <dcterms:extent>Oh, about 
the time it takes me to eat two slices of toast</dcterms:extent> is 
completely and utterly valid according to Dublin Core themselves.


Communications on or through ioko's computer systems may be monitored or recorded to secure effective system operation and for other lawful purposes.

Unless otherwise agreed expressly in writing, this communication is to be treated as confidential and the information in it may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you have reason to believe that you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please contact the sender immediately. No employee is authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of ioko with another party by e-mail without prior express written confirmation.

ioko365 Ltd.  VAT reg 656 2443 31. Reg no 3048367. All rights reserved.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 13:25:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:30 GMT