W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: [1.2T-LC] datatype (5.10.1) (ISSUE-2066)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:34:11 -0400
Message-ID: <48E01473.7060703@w3.org>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
CC: www-svg@w3.org

Hi, Dr. Olaf-

Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote (on 9/25/08 8:45 AM):
> As far as I understand the samples in RDFa, the 'datatype' seems
> to be related to the content of the attribute 'content' or to the content
> of the element itself, for example:
> '<span property="cal:dtstart" content="20070916T1600-0500"
>             datatype="xsd:datetime">
>         September 16th at 4pm
> </span>'
> (o;
> looking into xsd:datetime this looks like a wrong interpretation
> of xsd:datetime
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime
> The content of the element does not fit to xsd:datetime and
> in the value of the content attribute there are missing some
> signs: 2007-09-16T16:00-05:00
> ;o)

It would be helpful to RDFa if you were to point out this issue to that WG.

> or
> '<span property="dbp:dateOfBirth" datatype="xsd:date">1879-03-14</span>'
> or
> '<h2 property="dc:title" datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral">
>   E = mc<sup>2</sup>: The Most Urgent Problem of Our Time
> </h2>'
> I did not read the complete RDFa to find the paragraph, how to
> avoid this plurivalence, but obviously it is not just an(y)other
> attribute, maybe only 'content' or the content of the element itself.
> Whereever the content comes from, datatype seems to be related
> to the content, not directly to the value of an(y)other attribute.
> The current SVG definition at least seems to exclude the second 
> possibility.

Yes, you're right to point this out.

> And if it is true, that it is always related to the content,
> then maybe one can write:
> 'The 'datatype' attribute specifies a datatype for the content of the
> element, 'datatype' is the attribute for, respectively for the plain 
> text attribute value of the 'ontent' attribute if provided.'

Thanks much for providing wording; that's always very helpful.  I
modified it slightly, and included it in the spec. [1]

Instead of speaking of the content of the element, I spoke of the
element itself, since someone may wish to provide a 'datatype' for a
shape, in addition to text content.

> 'typeof' is just an association, therefore there is no need to avoid
> plurivalences.


>> With the informative reference, do you still think there's a problem?
> I think, I understand this RDFa and their samples, with this reference
> this looks much better and is much more convenient to find some
> information, how to use it ;o)

Great, thanks!


-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Sunday, 28 September 2008 23:34:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:20 UTC