epub check mentiones an error

NASCARaddicted · 02-11-2010, 05:03 AM

I know, epub checks have been discussed before, but still I want to mention it again

I have a public domain html file that I converted into xhtml 1.1 (it is valid). Then I converted it into epub with the latest edition of calibre (I always use the latest version). Then I let it run through an epub check (threepress.org which uses epub check 1.0.5)

Everything was o.k. except for 1 error:
ERROR: Rosenresli - Johanna Spyri.epub/content.opf(10): date value '2010-02-08T22:00:00' is not valid, YYYY[-MM[-DD]] expected

Member Netseeker told me that Dublin Core recommends the usage of either just the year (YYYY) or year+month (YYYY-MM) ...

So I edited line 10 of the content.opf and removed the time setting, so that only the 2010-02-08 was left - and now the epub file passed the epub check.

Is there a way how I can keep the time setting out of the convertion ? Or do I have to remove it every time, by myself ?

Thanks in advance

kovidgoyal · 02-11-2010, 11:04 AM

In this instance I happen to think that DC is wrong. There is no harm in storing extra information in the date field, as this can be useful for publications other than novels, like magazines/newspapers. So this is not going to change.

kovidgoyal · 02-11-2010, 11:19 AM

Oh and I just had a look at the OPF 2.0 spec. It does not require the date field to be restricted to only days and not times.

http://www.idpf.org/2007/opf/OPF_2.0...ec.html#TOC2.2

wallcraft · 02-11-2010, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

It does not require the date field to be restricted to only days and not times.

I agree, this is a bug in epub check.

rmm200 · 02-11-2010, 12:19 PM

In the interest of getting tool problems fixed - can one of you report it to EPubcheck?

Thanks!

Robert

NASCARaddicted · 02-12-2010, 04:10 PM

thanks for all the replies.

I was already surprised in the beginning, when epub check gave out this error, because in the past I learned that calibre and the ebooks its creates are very reliable.

Jim Lester · 02-12-2010, 05:19 PM

2010-02-08T22:00:00 is not valid either (no timezone)

kovidgoyal · 02-13-2010, 12:26 AM

According to the following links

if a timezone is omitted it is assumed to be a local time zone

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html#zone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Times

Jim Lester · 02-14-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

According to the following links

if a timezone is omitted it is assumed to be a local time zone

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html#zone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Times

The spec for W3C dates/datetime gives no such latitude. If you include time you must include timezone.

Valid W3C Formats from http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime

Quote:

Year:
YYYY (eg 1997)
Year and month:
YYYY-MM (eg 1997-07)
Complete date:
YYYY-MM-DD (eg 1997-07-16)
Complete date plus hours and minutes:
YYYY-MM-DDThh:mmTZD (eg 1997-07-16T19:20+01:00)
Complete date plus hours, minutes and seconds:
YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssTZD (eg 1997-07-16T19:20:30+01:00)
Complete date plus hours, minutes, seconds and a decimal fraction of a
second
YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss.sTZD (eg 1997-07-16T19:20:30.45+01:00)

Besides, whose localtime, the creator's and if so what is the creator's localtime vs the consumer's localtime. For a long lived document, time without timezone is close to useless.

kovidgoyal · 02-14-2010, 05:37 PM

Writing timezones, is easy enough to do in calibre. Still wont fix the epubcheck problem though.

Jim Lester · 02-15-2010, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Writing timezones, is easy enough to do in calibre. Still wont fix the epubcheck problem though.

It'd be interesting to see if writing out a correct W3C date did indeed fix the problem. It wouldn't be surprising if an error message was more restrictive than the actual code is.

kovidgoyal · 02-15-2010, 01:06 AM

Well the next release of calibre will generate timezone info as well, so should be easy to check.

I have to say that accepting dates without timezones, but not dates+times without timezones is one of the more asinine things I have seen.

pdurrant · 02-15-2010, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

I have to say that accepting dates without timezones, but not dates+times without timezones is one of the more asinine things I have seen.

Well, if you have a date without time zone you have the precise time +/- 24 hours. With timezone you have the precise time +/- 12 hours. So adding the time zone only makes the reference twice as precise.

Adding a time (hours:minutes) without time zone to a date only gives you the time to +/-12 hours. Then adding a time zone gives you the time +/- 30 seconds. So in this instance adding a time zone makes the reference 1440 times as precise.

Perhaps this explains why I've never seen a date given with a time zone....

kovidgoyal · 02-15-2010, 09:50 AM

An excellent analysis

But, looking at the W3C note, I see that date with timezone, but no time is actually illegal, which leads me to believe that the degree of accuracy improvement was not the motivation for this.

The W3C seems to believe that having an accurate date is just plain wrong and should be discouraged.

02-11-2010, 05:03 AM	#1
NASCARaddicted Addict Posts: 340 Karma: 43106 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Germany Device: BeBook One, Pocketbook Touch, Pocketbook Touch HD	epub check mentiones an error I know, epub checks have been discussed before, but still I want to mention it again I have a public domain html file that I converted into xhtml 1.1 (it is valid). Then I converted it into epub with the latest edition of calibre (I always use the latest version). Then I let it run through an epub check (threepress.org which uses epub check 1.0.5) Everything was o.k. except for 1 error: ERROR: Rosenresli - Johanna Spyri.epub/content.opf(10): date value '2010-02-08T22:00:00' is not valid, YYYY[-MM[-DD]] expected Member Netseeker told me that Dublin Core recommends the usage of either just the year (YYYY) or year+month (YYYY-MM) ... So I edited line 10 of the content.opf and removed the time setting, so that only the 2010-02-08 was left - and now the epub file passed the epub check. Is there a way how I can keep the time setting out of the convertion ? Or do I have to remove it every time, by myself ? Thanks in advance

02-15-2010, 01:06 AM	#12
kovidgoyal creator of calibre Posts: 44,963 Karma: 27109050 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Mumbai, India Device: Various	Well the next release of calibre will generate timezone info as well, so should be easy to check. I have to say that accepting dates without timezones, but not dates+times without timezones is one of the more asinine things I have seen. Last edited by kovidgoyal; 02-15-2010 at 01:12 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Check Database Integrity - Error	ZakM	Calibre	2	09-06-2010 03:20 AM
Error: Failed to check database integrity in v0.7.16	irrationalJohn	Calibre	6	08-29-2010 02:31 PM
Error on Check Database Integrity	Filigree	Calibre	1	01-09-2010 01:21 AM
[Error] Check the integrity of the database	simonbcn	Calibre	0	08-30-2009 12:11 PM
Data error- cyclic redudancy check	nikolaskejd	Bookeen	21	06-05-2009 06:31 PM

02-11-2010, 11:04 AM	#2
kovidgoyal creator of calibre Posts: 44,963 Karma: 27109050 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Mumbai, India Device: Various	In this instance I happen to think that DC is wrong. There is no harm in storing extra information in the date field, as this can be useful for publications other than novels, like magazines/newspapers. So this is not going to change.

02-11-2010, 11:19 AM	#3
kovidgoyal creator of calibre Posts: 44,963 Karma: 27109050 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Mumbai, India Device: Various	Oh and I just had a look at the OPF 2.0 spec. It does not require the date field to be restricted to only days and not times. http://www.idpf.org/2007/opf/OPF_2.0...ec.html#TOC2.2

02-11-2010, 12:19 PM	#5
rmm200 Groupie Posts: 195 Karma: 414 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Bend, OR Device: Sony PRS-600	In the interest of getting tool problems fixed - can one of you report it to EPubcheck? Thanks! Robert

02-12-2010, 04:10 PM	#6
NASCARaddicted Addict Posts: 340 Karma: 43106 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Germany Device: BeBook One, Pocketbook Touch, Pocketbook Touch HD	thanks for all the replies. I was already surprised in the beginning, when epub check gave out this error, because in the past I learned that calibre and the ebooks its creates are very reliable.

02-12-2010, 05:19 PM	#7
Jim Lester Evangelist Posts: 416 Karma: 14682 Join Date: May 2008 Location: SF Bay Area Device: Nook HD, Nook for Windows 8	2010-02-08T22:00:00 is not valid either (no timezone)

02-13-2010, 12:26 AM	#8
kovidgoyal creator of calibre Posts: 44,963 Karma: 27109050 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Mumbai, India Device: Various	According to the following links if a timezone is omitted it is assumed to be a local time zone http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html#zone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Times

02-14-2010, 05:37 PM	#10
kovidgoyal creator of calibre Posts: 44,963 Karma: 27109050 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Mumbai, India Device: Various	Writing timezones, is easy enough to do in calibre. Still wont fix the epubcheck problem though.

02-15-2010, 09:50 AM	#14
kovidgoyal creator of calibre Posts: 44,963 Karma: 27109050 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Mumbai, India Device: Various	An excellent analysis But, looking at the W3C note, I see that date with timezone, but no time is actually illegal, which leads me to believe that the degree of accuracy improvement was not the motivation for this. The W3C seems to believe that having an accurate date is just plain wrong and should be discouraged.

Advert

Advert