On 12/3/2011 1:18 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Toby Inkster scripsit: > >> ISO 8601 gives us a nice, standard notation for durations. I'd support >> subsetting it if there were massive disadvantages to adopting the >> full notation, but I don't think these disadvantages exist. I've >> written a parser for ISO 8601 durations before, and I can't recall >> the requirement to differentiate between 'M' before and after the 'T' >> being especially onerous to implement. > > I presume what's under discussion is the XML Schema subset of 8601, > which excludes duration in weeks (these take the form PnW meaning "n > 7-day weeks"). I'm not sure why these were excluded. The 1st or 2nd draft of Datatypes that I wrote had type for EVERYTHING in ISO 8601, include the week types and the full range of durations. My memory is a little sketchy about matters that far back and I'm not sure if those were just editor's drafts or if we published them. I also don't remember why the WG decided to take out those parts of 8601. Poking around a bit, I do see that xs:timePeriod was in the Jun 04 1999 WD [1]. pvb [1] https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/1999/06/xmlschema-2/#timePeriodReceived on Saturday, 3 December 2011 23:32:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 3 December 2011 23:32:06 GMT