- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:59:26 -0500
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: "public-rdfa-wg@w3.org" <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: > What if it matches none of them? Untyped plain literal. Gregg > On 11/10/2011 8:52 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: >> In my version of the proposals, I perform lexical analysis of @datetime against xsd:date, xsd:dateTime and xsd:time and choose the datatype based on the match. It's quite simple. >> >> Gregg Kellogg >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Nov 10, 2011, at 4:48 AM, "Ivan Herman"<ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> Now that<time> seems to be back into the picture, I have looked at ISSUE-97 again[1]. >>> >>> The issue, as raised by Stéphane, proposes to understand the '@datetime' property of the<time> element. Essentially, if the source contains this: >>> >>> <time property="something" datetime="2009-05-10">May 10th 2009</time> >>> >>> we should, implicitly, consider this as being >>> >>> <time property="something" datetime="2009-05-10" content="2009-05-10">May 10th 2009</time> >>> >>> and then let the core RDFa processing go. That is of course easy. >>> >>> However... do we want to add a datatype to this? One would think so, but then we get to a very slippery slope. Which datatype? Looking at >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#date >>> >>> we do have quite a lot of possibilities... There is of course xsd:dateTime (this is what Stéphane used in his original mail for the issue). This would mean the transformation of the<time> element into: >>> >>> <time property="something" datetime="2009-05-10" content="2009-05-10T00:00:00-00:00" datatype="xsd:dateTime">May 10th 2009</time> >>> >>> but there are a bunch of others, like gYear, gYearMonth, etc. >>> >>> Personally, I would propose to use xsd:dateTime only. But that has to be decided by the group. >>> >>> However, nothing with time is simple... If the author puts in the whole ISO format, then are of course fine. But I would expect that in the vast majority of cases the hour and minute and the others will all be missing. Is it all right to just add the 0 hour, as Stéphane did it? Again, I can live with that, but this is something to be decided and known for interoperability reasons... >>> >>> Minor things, but should be cast in stone:-) >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/97 >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > -- > Shane McCarron > Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. > +1 763 786 8160 x120 > >
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 15:01:44 UTC