W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > December 2011

Re: <time> values in HTML5

From: Paul \ <paul@sparrow-hawk.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:30:51 -0700
Message-ID: <4EDAB12B.6000202@sparrow-hawk.org>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, tantek@cs.stanford.edu, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, public-html-xml@w3.org
On 12/3/2011 1:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Toby Inkster scripsit:
>> ISO 8601 gives us a nice, standard notation for durations. I'd support
>> subsetting it if there were massive disadvantages to adopting the
>> full notation, but I don't think these disadvantages exist. I've
>> written a parser for ISO 8601 durations before, and I can't recall
>> the requirement to differentiate between 'M' before and after the 'T'
>> being especially onerous to implement.
> I presume what's under discussion is the XML Schema subset of 8601,
> which excludes duration in weeks (these take the form PnW meaning "n
> 7-day weeks").  I'm not sure why these were excluded.

The 1st or 2nd draft of Datatypes that I wrote had type for EVERYTHING in ISO 
8601, include the week types and the full range of durations.  My memory is a 
little sketchy about matters that far back and I'm not sure if those were just 
editor's drafts or if we published them.  I also don't remember why the WG 
decided to take out those parts of 8601.

Poking around a bit, I do see that xs:timePeriod was in the Jun 04 1999 WD [1].


[1] https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/1999/06/xmlschema-2/#timePeriod
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 23:32:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:08:26 UTC