- How are Julian dates to be displayed? So far as I am aware, ISO8601 has no facility for marking up Julian dates, so should the form
<abbr class="dtstart" title="[Gregorian date]">[Julian date]</abbr>
be used? If so, that should be indicated, via an example.- REJECTED not 80/20. Publishing Julian dates on the web is not 80/20, and is thus out of scope for fixing/adding to hCalendar. In addition, extending ISO8601 is also out of scope for hCalendar.
- How are Julian dates to be displayed? So far as I am aware, ISO8601 has no facility for marking up Julian dates, so should the form
hcalendar-issues-closed: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(fix link to history microformat effort) |
m (Replace <entry-title> with {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:hCalendar closed issues}} | |||
== closed issues == | == closed issues == |
Latest revision as of 16:24, 18 July 2020
closed issues
Closed issues that have no further actions to take..
closed 2005
Issues that were raised in 2005 that have been resolved, and any/all related outstanding actions have been completed.
- 2005-02-18 raised by Matt Raymond on the whatwg list:
- There is no way for some reading the markup to tell if a class name is the name of an attribute or simply the name of a class used for styling.
- REJECTED (strawman, poor assumption). There is no need to differentiate in the general case. Class names should always be semantic, and whether they are used for styling is orthogonal.
- As a result of the above, user agents would not be able to reliably allow users to access extension properties such as "x-mozilla-alarm-default-length" (which is an actual extension used in Sunbird).
- REJECTED (out of scope). Extension properties are outside the current scope of hCalendar.
- The use of
<abbr>
for dates is incorrect. "August 5th, 2004" is not the abbreviation of 2004-08-05. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth.- REJECTED (strawman). In practice the year is often omitted and thus "August 5th" actually is an abbreviation for 2004-08-05 which specifies the year. See this article for an explanation of this use of
<abbr>
Human vs. ISO8601 dates problem solved
- REJECTED (strawman). In practice the year is often omitted and thus "August 5th" actually is an abbreviation for 2004-08-05 which specifies the year. See this article for an explanation of this use of
- You have to create a complex set of rules for all possible uses of legacy markup within which can easily be implemented incorrectly.
- REJECTED (false statements, strawman). There is no legacy markup. There is no need to create rules for all possible uses of legacy markup. There is no need to create a complex set of rules.
- There are styling and tooltip issues that are unresolved.
- REJECTED (empty statements). See the hCalendar FAQ for answers to specific styling and tooltip questions. Otherwise, please raise specific issues here with clear valid examples.
- hCalendar/hCard is more complicated for webmasters to read and understand and more complicated for developers to implement.
- REJECTED (empty statements, invalid comparator). Please state specific examples which show the perceived complexity. The comparison "more complicated" requires two items, no second item was provided.
- There is no way for some reading the markup to tell if a class name is the name of an attribute or simply the name of a class used for styling.
- 2005-02-22 raised by Matt Raymond on the whatwg list:
- 2005-07-21 raised by Neil Jensen
- should we create a vfreebusy class for HTML representations of freebusy data? Discussion on hCalendar brainstorming. Additional background: here.
- REJECTED out of scope for hCalendar. hCalendar focuses on publishing events on the web. Indication of free/busy time is a different enough semantic that it is probably worth its own microformat research and exploration, and as part of that, listing the iCalendar VFREEBUSY as a previous format. - Tantek 08:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- should we create a vfreebusy class for HTML representations of freebusy data? Discussion on hCalendar brainstorming. Additional background: here.
closed 2006
- 2006-01-04 raised by CGranade
- Interactions with strong namespacing. So far, it seems that hCalendar cannot be embedded into non-XHTML schemas that are also strongly namespaced (e.g.: RDF, Atom) without a resultant validation error, as the
class
attribute is not portable across schemas.- REJECTED. The class attribute is used on XHTML elements, which are XML, which can be embedded in any other XML. The issue as raised doesn't make sense.
- Interactions with strong namespacing. So far, it seems that hCalendar cannot be embedded into non-XHTML schemas that are also strongly namespaced (e.g.: RDF, Atom) without a resultant validation error, as the
- 2006-02-01 raised by RyanKing
- 2006-02-17 raised by Mark Mansour - notes are summarized here
- Should embedded components be allowed? RyanKing has already noted that vJournal overlaps blog-posts (although not yet accepted), but should the components to-do, free/busy, timezone, alarms be allowed? They all considered as just as relevant by the ical spec as events are (my interpretation).
- ACCEPTED SPECUPDATE/FAQ. to-do: Explicitly specify which additional iCalendar objects (in addition to VEVENT, if any) are permitted in hCalendar. Current additional candidates: VTODO (many examples of this info on the web), VFREEBUSY (already at least one site publishing this info), VALARM (maybe, seems harmless enough, but without a compelling real world use case we should probably omit it). Currently dropping: VTIMEZONE (terrible construct), VJOURNAL (obsoleted by hAtom).
- UPDATE: hCalendar now specifies right at the top that it takes properties 1:1 from the VEVENT object in particular. Tantek
- Should embedded components be allowed? RyanKing has already noted that vJournal overlaps blog-posts (although not yet accepted), but should the components to-do, free/busy, timezone, alarms be allowed? They all considered as just as relevant by the ical spec as events are (my interpretation).
- 2006-09-22 raised by
closed 2007
- 2007-05-12 raised by
- A pertinent point from the 22 Feb 2007 version of hcalendar issues. Worth keeping and addressing.
- REJECTED too little information. Unclear WHICH point from that version of hcalendar-issues you think is worth keeping and addressing. All issues should be kept and resolved one way or another (with perhaps elimination of dups).
- A pertinent point from the 22 Feb 2007 version of hcalendar issues. Worth keeping and addressing.
closed 2008
- 2008-01-16 raised by
- Lack of method for marking up vague dates and eras; see vague-date examples (AKA historical dates).
- REJECTED out of scope. While there certainly would be some utility in marking up vague dates and eras for historical purposes, this is outside the scope of and typical (80/20) usage of event publishing on the web. For both this problem of vague dates/eras, and Julian dates, it may be better to do research for a separate history microformat (history-examples, history-formats, history-brainstorming) to determine what would be sufficient to capture/publish the 80/20 of historical data/events published on the web. Options considered for history-brainstorming should include a separate microformat that re-uses hCalendar properties, perhaps minor extensions to hCalendar (to be considered for inclusion in 1.1) etc. However, all such brainstorming/proposals should be based on examples/formats research first.
- Lack of method for marking up vague dates and eras; see vague-date examples (AKA historical dates).
- 2008-09-30 raised by
- There is no way to define BC (before Christ) dates, is there? There should be! Thamis 03:58, 30 Sep 2008 (PDT)
- REJECTED duplicate. See issue #historical-dates.
- There is no way to define BC (before Christ) dates, is there? There should be! Thamis 03:58, 30 Sep 2008 (PDT)