Support RDFa output in date formatter [#2139551]

Problem/Motivation

The date field currently hard-codes a dc:date in core/modules/datetime/lib/Drupal/datetime/Plugin/Field/FieldFormatter/DatetimeDefaultFormatter.php:126. We need to support the RDF mappings defined by core.

Proposed resolution

Change core/modules/datetime/lib/Drupal/datetime/Plugin/Field/FieldFormatter/DatetimeDefaultFormatter.php to use the proper mappings of core. A good example is the taxonomy field formatter at #1778122-113: Enable modules to inject attributes into field formatters, so that RDF attributes get output.

Remaining tasks

write patch

User interface changes

none

API changes

none

Comment	File	Size	Author
#17	interdiff.txt	962 bytes	ashepherd
#17	2139551-datime_rdfa-17.patch	4.65 KB	ashepherd
#17
#15	2139551-diff-13-15.txt	767 bytes	vijaycs85
#15	2139551-datime_rdfa-15.patch	4.43 KB	vijaycs85
#15
#13	rdf-datetime_rdfa_support-2139551-13.patch	4.32 KB	chrisfromredfin
#13
#11	rdf-datetime_rdfa_support-2139551-11.patch	1.05 KB	chrisfromredfin
#11
#9	datetime-rdfa-support-2139551-9.patch	1.05 KB	djevans
#9
#5	interdiff-2139551-2-5.txt	952 bytes	djevans
#5	datetime-rdfa-support-2139551-5.patch	1.07 KB	djevans
#5
#2	datetime-rdfa-support-2139551-2.patch	737 bytes	djevans
#2

Support from Acquia helps fund testing for Drupal Acquia logo

Comments

Comment #1

djevans CreditAttribution: djevans commented 23 November 2013 at 11:17

The simplest thing seems to be to remove the hardcoded reference to dc:date. Adding RDF mappings to datetime fields then adds the @property attribute to the wrapper <div> of each individual <time> element.
This also shouldn't affect any of the property mappings that already exist in core.

Comment #2

djevans CreditAttribution: djevans commented 23 November 2013 at 11:16

File	Size
datetime-rdfa-support-2139551-2.patch	737 bytes

Comment #3

scor CreditAttribution: scor commented 23 November 2013 at 12:26

I'd rather add the @property inside the time element since the new field formatters in D8 allow that. See how the taxonomy field formatter does it.

Comment #4

djevans CreditAttribution: djevans commented 24 November 2013 at 11:02

OK, @property now belongs to the inner <time> element, using a similar approach to the Taxonomy module's LinkFormatter. The comments in template_preprocess_field() also helped.

Comment #5

djevans CreditAttribution: djevans commented 24 November 2013 at 11:05

File	Size
datetime-rdfa-support-2139551-5.patch	1.07 KB

interdiff-2139551-2-5.txt	952 bytes

Comment #6

djevans CreditAttribution: djevans commented 24 November 2013 at 13:57

Status:

Active

» Needs review

Comment #7

24 November 2013 at 14:21

The last submitted patch, 2: datetime-rdfa-support-2139551-2.patch, failed testing.

Comment #8

24 November 2013 at 15:03

The last submitted patch, 5: datetime-rdfa-support-2139551-5.patch, failed testing.

Comment #9

djevans CreditAttribution: djevans commented 24 November 2013 at 18:46

File	Size
datetime-rdfa-support-2139551-9.patch	1.05 KB

Comment #10

scor CreditAttribution: scor commented 22 January 2014 at 17:14

Issue tags:

+RDF code sprint

Comment #11

chrisfromredfin

he/him/his

English

Portland, Maine

CreditAttribution: chrisfromredfin commented 25 January 2014 at 17:58

File	Size
rdf-datetime_rdfa_support-2139551-11.patch	1.05 KB

patch re-rolled... seems like the filename just changed.

Is there other work to do on this in terms of the actual solution, or is the formatter acceptable as-is?

Comment #12

scor CreditAttribution: scor commented 25 January 2014 at 20:55

Status:

Needs review

» Needs work

We will need test for this one as well, much like the other field formatters.

Comment #13

chrisfromredfin

he/him/his

English

Portland, Maine

CreditAttribution: chrisfromredfin commented 4 February 2014 at 22:29

Status:

Needs work

» Needs review

File	Size
rdf-datetime_rdfa_support-2139551-13.patch	4.32 KB

This patch is the above patch, plus a new test for the datetime_default formatter. TBD is whether or not we need to test the datetime_plain formatter. As of right now it doesn't support RDFa at all, so we're not sure if either (a) the formatter should go away, (b) the formatter should stay as is, and not support RDFa, or (c) we should include support for RDFa in the plain formatter.

Note that it also includes a change to the signature for FieldRdfaTestBase::assertFormatterRdfa() by adding a fifth parameter for $datatype. Probably a better approach here is to pass in $expected_value as an array, rather than take three values in the function signature, but I will leave that to another issue. For now, this is preferred because it won't break other tests.

Comment #14

vijaycs85

London, UK

CreditAttribution: vijaycs85 commented 9 February 2014 at 15:35

13: rdf-datetime_rdfa_support-2139551-13.patch queued for re-testing.

Comment #15

vijaycs85

London, UK

CreditAttribution: vijaycs85 commented 9 February 2014 at 15:52

File	Size
2139551-datime_rdfa-15.patch	4.43 KB

2139551-diff-13-15.txt	767 bytes

Not sure how the default case(e.g. dc:date) covered.

+++ b/core/modules/rdf/lib/Drupal/rdf/Tests/Field/FieldRdfaTestBase.php
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ public function setUp() {
    * @param string $object_type
    *   The object's type, either 'uri' or 'literal'.
    */

missing new param in docblock. Adding in this patch.

Comment #16

scor CreditAttribution: scor commented 4 March 2014 at 22:26

Status:

Needs review

» Needs work

Not sure how the default case(e.g. dc:date) covered.

The dc:date came from contrib when the date module was first introduced in core. It should be removed since we now use the attributes that come from config (like this patch already does). The following line also need to be removed:

      // @todo How should RDFa attributes be added to this?
      ...
      'datatype' => 'xsd:dateTime',

TBD is whether or not we need to test the datetime_plain formatter. As of right now it doesn't support RDFa at all, so we're not sure if either (a) the formatter should go away, (b) the formatter should stay as is, and not support RDFa, or (c) we should include support for RDFa in the plain formatter.

I've mulled over this for the last couple of weeks and I'm convinced we shouldn't support/worry about this field formatter, I'm not even sure why someone would want to use this field formatter and have RDFa at the same time. I'm not even sure what the purpose of this field formatter is on its own (but that's beyond this issue). Moreover, if someone really want to have RDFa with a similar output as the plain formatter, they could register a custom date format and choose it in the settings of the default date formatter, and get RDFa for free via the time HTML5 element.