W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > March 2005

RE: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 07:48:34 +1100
Message-ID: <7997F38251504E43B38435DAF917887F40C36B@ausyms23.ca.com>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
That's a good idea. After all, this is what xs:duration was invented for.
 
If you want an explicit 32 days (for example) you can use 32D. There may well be occasions where you want 1M (try again next month, same day). Indeed, it's conceivable that a university admissions system might want to say "try again next year" - duration 1Y.
 
Tony

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Rich Salz 
	Sent: Wed 02-Mar-05 7:37 
	To: Anish Karmarkar 
	Cc: Rogers, Tony; Jonathan Marsh; public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
	Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks
	
	


	> Any reason not to use xs:duration rather than xs:unsignedInt or some
	> derived type of it?
	
	They seem much more complicated then a simple integer.
	
	For example, the length of a duration depends on when you send it (e.g.,
	1M1D could be anywhere from 29 to 32 days).
	
	        /r$
	--
	Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
	DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
	XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
	
	
	
	
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2005 20:49:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:04 GMT