Re: noted 3 issues re: time/data (was Re: minutes for HTML WG f2f, 2011-11-04, part 1)

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:56, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
> On 11/10/2011 12:07 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> I see three issues
>> which are semi-related but can be semi-independently addressed.
>> 1. Reintroduction of the enhanced time element. Use-cases/needs have
>> been demonstrated for an enhanced time element and thus we should add
>> it.
>> 2. Introduction of the data element. There are enough use-cases of the
>> general class of human vs. machine data publishing that justify a
>> simple data element for use with microformats, microdata, RDFa.
>> 3. Drop pubdate attribute. The pubdate attribute is a vestigial piece
>> of markup left-over from the attempt to provide automatic HTML5 to
>> Atom conversion, and in practice is either not used, or typically used
>> in conjunction with the hAtom microformat which doesn't supersets its
>> functionality.
>> Sam, your guidance as to how best document/progress these three issues
>> is appreciated.
> The split seems fine with me.  Your use of tenses is inconsistent, you talk
> about reintroduction of time, the introduction of data, and dropping
> pubdate; the baseline should be the document as it exists after the revert
> request is applied, so the first issue should talk about changes to the time
> element that will lead to greater consensus.
> Your characterizations as to whether the use cases are sufficient or not
> should go into the proposals themselves, these are not conclusions that the
> working group has yet reached.

Guidance appreciated.

Here is an iteration of the above issues based on your suggested improvements:

1. Enhance and simplify the time element. A change proposal to enhance
and simplify the time element based on use-cases and needs documented
to date:

2. Add a data element. A change proposal to introduce a simple data
element for use with microformats, microdata, RDFa based on use-cases
of the general class of human vs. machine data publishing:

3. Drop the pubdate attribute. A change proposal to drop the pubdate
attribute as part of completing the removal of the Atom conversion
algorithm which itself hasn't been a part of the W3C HTML5
specification for over a year:

> At the F2F there was a strong objection to the time element, but
> subsequently the person who objected seems to have reconsidered.

That's good to hear.

> There are a number of objections to the data element (objections spotted so
> far: spec text favoring Microdata over RDFa

Agreed with that issue, and I've updated the data_element change
proposal accordingly to show multiple examples without preferring a
microformats/microdata/RDFa syntax, and with preferring openly
developed vocabularies/URLs.

> and questioning the need to add
> an element that has zero semantics and complete overlap with the span
> element).

I've noted some reasons for preferring a new element over a new global
attribute or enhancing the span element.

> If possible, consider addressing these objections in the Change
> Proposal and trying to see if we can find consensus.

Thanks, I believe I've done so.

> I have yet to hear any objections to dropping the pubdate attribute.  If
> there is a proposal to do so, and we don't receive any counter proposals, we
> can issue a call for consensus on this matter.

I've now written up a change proposal for that issue/portion as well:



-- - I made an HTML5 tutorial!

Received on Sunday, 13 November 2011 00:52:33 UTC