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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:53:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD5oDA5Xp3b+eut+BpfK_anx+JAusQW1WRHF_KC3NkB9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Devlin <ian@iandevlin.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, public-html@w3.org, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Ian Devlin <ian@iandevlin.com> wrote:
> My example was more to illustrate a scenario where a page may have multiple
> <time> elements and anything that's traversing that page, for example a
> search engine spider, couldn't possible know which one of the <time>
> elements on the page in question was representing the publish date, and
> therefore which one is the relevant one (in this case).

Let's elaborate on this a little more.  What's the spider doing?  If
it's just reading an ordinary HTML page that happens to have <time> in
it, it doesn't matter that the concert listings use <time> and the
last-modified date uses <time pubdate>, *because it doesn't understand
what any of them are anyway*.

On the other hand, if you're using a Microdata vocabulary like vEvent
to express the concert listings, the spider can tell what the <time>s
in the listings are, and can tell that the last-modified date *isn't*
part of any listing.  You don't need the @pubdate to distinguish them
here, either.

So, this simply isn't a use-case for @pubdate.

Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 17:54:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:45 UTC