- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:25:36 +0100
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> 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. +1, that's what I'd like. Best regards, Niklas > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 16:26:37 UTC