- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:38:28 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > > On Nov 11, 2011, at 16:55 , Niklas Lindström wrote: > [snip] > >> >> I fully agree. >> >> Note that we already have element awareness for RDFa in (X)HTML: the >> base element is treated (very) specially, as is head and body >> (implying @about). Thus special processing of the content of <time> in >> HTML should be quite ok. >> >> I also think we should consider whether xsd:gYear, xsd:gYearMonth and >> xsd:gMonthDay can be captured as well (since years less than 1000 must >> be padded with leading zeros [1]). Of course, xsd:gMonth and xsd:gDay >> are too ambiguous, as today's date so amply indicates. ;) >> > > I have just gone through the HTML5 specification for my own implementation, notably the microsyntax specification for time: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/common-microsyntaxes.html#dates-and-times > > my reading is that they accept datetime, date, and time, and that the syntax requirements for those are the 'standard', ie, ISO one. But I may have missed something there. But, if this is so then, actually, we could even choose to reject any @datetime value that does not parse according to those rules (I am not saying we should do it, I think outputting a plain literal is fine). In other words, I am not sure it is worth going to all the different additional types. We should keep to what the HTML5 doc says. As Jeni noted, <time> is likely to change further, probably based on Tantek's input: http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/time_element. This includes support for other date formats including duration. Unfortunately, the wiki does not describe these formats in terms of XSD; hopefully the HTML5 spec will reference the appropriate XSD sections so that it's clear that the formats are canonical. Unfortunately, much like RDFa, HTML5 is still in a state of flux, at least in this regard. That make's it premature to firmly specify any behavior. At best, we should have a statement that the HTML+RDFa spec will follow the HTML spec with regards to <data> and <time>. My own processor understands date, time, dateTime and duration. Adding support for gYear, gYearMonth and gMonthDay would be straightforward. I also agree that, in the absence of @datetime, the <time> element's text value should be used instead. Gregg > Ivan > > > >> Best regards, >> Niklas >> >> [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#nt-gYearRep >> >> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>>> -- >>>> Toby A Inkster >>>> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> >>>> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > ---- > 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 Friday, 11 November 2011 16:39:25 UTC