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

Re: <time> values in HTML5

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:48:28 -0500
To: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
Cc: tantek@cs.stanford.edu, 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
Message-ID: <20111122174828.GB1733@mercury.ccil.org>
Liam R E Quin scripsit:

> XSD already has date/time types; sometimes an increase in
> interoperability (here by specifying an additional mapping from a
> lexical form, probbably) is worth while even at CR.

I don't think you can add year-and-week just as an additional mapping;
it is not commensurable with any existing XSD types.  It most closely
resembles gYear, gYearMonth, and date, representing a specific interval
of time, but one whose length is 7 days rather than a year, a month,
or a day.  It needs to be a new gYearWeek type, as Jeni said.

> Preserving timezones would be harder, since currently XSD times are
> historical (or extensionally defined), not intensional - there's no way
> in XSD to represent "the third Tuesday of the month" for exampel, or
> "8am local time, varying in UTC depending on the status of daylight
> savings time" for example.
> I think adding intensional time would be a significant change, and Mike
> Kay's idea of a separate document makes sense there.

>From what I understand, this is not the issue: the issue is that there
is no XSD type corresponding to a bare time zone offset.  This could be
treated as an integer type with a range of -24*60 to +24*60.

John Cowan   cowan@ccil.org   http://ccil.org/~cowan
I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the British
Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence
of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1.  I doubt if
the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of
equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:49:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:08:25 UTC