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: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 03:43:38 +1100
Message-ID: <7997F38251504E43B38435DAF917887F40C37F@ausyms23.ca.com>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, "Tom Rutt" <tom@coastin.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
No, no, no.
 
  xs:dateTime is an instant in time, not a period of time
  xs:duration is a period of time, not an instant in time
 
that's the whole point of these two types. This proposal would make us look stupid to the entire community, implying that we did not understand the difference between the types. I, for one, don't want to look stupid that way.
 
I would not be opposed to using a type derived from xs:duration; perhaps one that doesn't support all of the options inherent in xs:duration.
 
Tony

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Rich Salz 
	Sent: Fri 04-Mar-05 3:30 
	To: Tom Rutt 
	Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
	Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks
	
	


	> For when Rich's concerns are relevant to an exchange,
	> Is it not possible to use only the seconds subfield with decimal
	> representation to arbitrary range and precision?
	
	How about we just use xs:dateTime?  It avoids the ambiguity of xs:Duration,
	it seems to me that it captures same semantics, and it doesn't seem to
	add undue burden on implementors to implement all XSD datatypes.
	
	Yes, you can view that last point as self-interest, but I think there's
	benefit in limiting how dependant we are on XSD data types.
	        /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 Thursday, 3 March 2005 16:44:13 GMT

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