- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 19:34:40 +0100
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Cc: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
On 29 Oct 2011, at 16:25, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > On Oct 29, 2011, at 2:02 AM, "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: >> A quick thing for your next revision to the microdata RDF spec: Hixie has resolved the issue on replacing <time> with <data> [1] and made the relevant changes in the spec [2]. The new <data> element has a value attribute which is used to provide the relevant microdata property value [3]. > > Looking at the diffs, it is clear that @value is intended for typed data, and that lexical scanning might be in order. I believe Hixie would reject this and say that the vocabulary must define the types and be explicitly supported by a processor, but for generic transformation this is not feasible. > > If we do lexical scanning, what set of datatypes is appropriate? Thoughts? Personally, I don't think we should do any lexical scanning. Whether an appropriate data type is assigned based on property information from a registry is another question. It might be that even with a default mapping, literals generated from @value attributes shouldn't be language tagged, as they're designed to hold machine-readable rather than human-readable values. Jeni >> [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240#c47 >> [2] http://html5.org/r/6783 >> [3] http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/Overview.html#values -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2011 18:35:21 UTC