- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:49:58 -0700
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vnkqeh_JJAhwerPbMNRUW94PLkM4Zgomm56jMYhVhDkDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Philip, I refer you to this email: Enhanced change control after the Last Call cutoff http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0125.html I have based the revert request on the details outlined there in. regards Stevef On 30 October 2011 14:56, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:59:02 +0100, Steve Faulkner < > faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > > the editor of the HTML5 specification has made a change to the >> specification that is not supported for good reasons (see below, source: >> http://willyou.typewith.me/p/**9Zl7I2dOKs<http://willyou.typewith.me/p/9Zl7I2dOKs> >> ) >> >> I therefore request a revert of this change http://html5.org/r/6783, so >> that it can be further discussed and decided within the consensus based >> HTML WG process. >> > > It seems to me that <http://dev.w3.org/html5/**decision-policy/decision-** > policy.html <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html>> > has been followed strictly in this instance -- <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/** > Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240>> > was open for 3 months before the spec change, with lots of people > commenting. We are now at step 2 of the process: editor's response. > Reverting is not a documented part of that process, but under which > criteria the chairs demand it anyway is unclear to me. (That it will become > an ISSUE seems a given.) > > > [1] The time element, while being limited to a very specific use case, is >> simple. Uptake so far has been good, as far as I can tell. There are many >> blogs outside who already use this, and the Boston Globe has them, too: >> http://bostonglobe.com/ Also, there is adoption by the microformats >> community: http://microformats.org/wiki/**html5#time_element<http://microformats.org/wiki/html5#time_element> >> >> The default WordPress theme, 2011, uses <time> and pubdate on blog >> <article>s http://twentyelevendemo.**wordpress.com/<http://twentyelevendemo.wordpress.com/> >> > > What harm comes from <time> no longer being valid? AFAIK, Opera is the > only browser that ever implemented any kind of support for <time> (DOM > interface and in microdata), but even then it's rendered just like any > other element. > > > [2] The data element is just a container like div or span. The only >> difference is the value attribute which could be made valid for (nearly) >> every element, thus eliminating the need for data completely. >> > > A global attribute intuitively seems like a good idea, but it becomes > quite confusing in cases like this: > > <img src=foo itemprop=img value=bar> > > Is itemValue foo (resolved as a URL) or bar? If it is bar, is it also > resolved as a URL? It seems like setting itemValue would modify different > underlying attributes depending on what attributes are already present, > which is unprecedented AFAIK. > > This was discussed in the bug, see e.g. <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/** > Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240#**c17<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240#c17> > >. > > > [3] It makes no sense to remove the pubdate attribute which was a fast and >> convenient way to specify the publish date of an article. Now this >> specification is much more complicated, you’d need either a complete hAtom >> microformat or some kind of rather complex microdata. I think those two >> won’t get any faster adoption than time, risking that the date of an >> information might get lost in non-semantic code. >> > > That seems a rather tolerable risk, given that the information is > syndicated in RSS/Atom anyway. Throwing away pubdate also means that > creation data and modification date can be handled in a uniform way. > > > [4] <time> (or its precursor, <date>) has an obvious semantic (easy to >> learn, easy to read). Because it's restricted to dates and times, the >> datetime attribute has a specific syntax that can be checked by a >> validator. <data value=""> has no such built-in syntax, as it's for >> arbitrary data, so can't be machine validated, leading to more erroneous >> dates being published. Therefore, the reliability and thus the utility of >> the information being communicated in machine-readable format diminishes. >> > > The fixed syntax had its issues as well, in particular > <time>2011-10</time> was always invalid, so it was never possible to use > for fuzzier dates, something that dissuaded me from using it. It also can't > be used for all the kinds of times that schema.org has, as it was > actually a subset of ISO 8601 not including durations or repeating > intervals. > > Also, if one publishes data using <data value=""> and microdata, one will > want to use vocabulary-specific validation to check all of the data, not > just the dates. Vocabulary-aware validation is admittedly vapor-ware right > now, but see <http://bugzilla.validator.nu/**show_bug.cgi?id=851<http://bugzilla.validator.nu/show_bug.cgi?id=851> > >. > > > [5] The spec for <data> says "A script loaded by the page (and thus privy >> to the page's internal convention of marking up dates and times using the >> data element) could scan through the page and look at all the data >> elements >> therein to create an index of dates and times." ( >> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/**web-apps/current-work/** >> multipage/text-level-**semantics.html#the-data-**element<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/text-level-semantics.html#the-data-element> >> ) >> >> >> This is a retrograde step from the <time> element that uses a wider >> standard/ convention for dates, such as ISO 8601 because now the script >> must be "privy to the page's internal convention". >> > > I don't understand, how does this make a difference to scripts? It can > either sort the values textually or by converting them to Date object, both > with <time> and <data>. It seems that <data> is just more flexible, as > formats like "2011-10" or "2011-{10,11}" could now be used. > > > 6] <data> as an element is public data. data-* attributes are private >> (only >> for scripts on a page, not external crawlers: "These attributes are not >> intended for use by software that is independent of the site that uses the >> attributes." >> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/**web-apps/current-work/** >> multipage/elements.html#**embedding-custom-non-visible-** >> data-with-the-data-*-**attributes<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/elements.html#embedding-custom-non-visible-data-with-the-data-*-attributes> >> ). >> This is highly confusing. >> > > You just pointed out precisely where the difference is, so to whom is it > confusing? > > > [7] The spec has an example of a sortable table. What does <data value=""> >> bring that <span data-value=""> doesn't? >> > > <data value=""> can be used with microdata while data-* attributes can't, > for the reason you stated in the previous point. > > -- > Philip Jägenstedt > Core Developer > Opera Software > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 22:50:57 UTC