- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:44:50 +0100
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Cc: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Nov 11, 2011, at 17:38 , Gregg Kellogg wrote: > 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. Unfortunately, that is where we are. > At best, we should have a statement that the HTML+RDFa spec will follow the HTML spec with regards to <data> and <time>. Yes > My own processor understands date, time, dateTime and duration. Adding support for gYear, gYearMonth and gMonthDay would be straightforward. I do not have duration, but have all the others:-) Ivan > > 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 >> >> >> >> >> > > ---- 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 17:42:29 UTC