Add previousStartDate rangeIncludes DateTime #4679
Open
+2
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Brings it inline with description (being previously scheduled start date values, which include DateTime), existing examples (eg-0172, eg-0202), and usage practices around the web (including Google's "Event Structured Data" docs). Release v3.1 (2016) added DateTime to startDate, but previousStartDate was unchanged at the time.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This would bring it inline with conventional usage, existing repository examples, and seeming-intended usage. Without this DateTime inclusion, schema-based validation of previousStartDate assume that only a Date is valid and emit an error.
Since this is an amendment of an existing property, I updated
schema.ttldirectly rather than a dedicateddata/ext/pending/*file that seem to be for new definitions, but let me know if I should change it.This is a follow-up to my original issue about this in #4490, although there was not further discussion on it.