W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > May 2006

Re: xsd:duration datatype validation

From: David Landwehr <david.landwehr@solidapp.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:25:27 +0200
Message-ID: <446ADDF7.6050506@solidapp.com>
To: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Cc: www-forms@w3.org, Allan Beaufour <beaufour@gmail.com>

Hi Leigh,

Thanks for the follow up.

I do have some difficulties understanding the rationale for changing 
xsd:duration to an abstract type. I can understand the problem when 
comparing xsd:dateTimeDuration with xsd:dayDateDuration but when does 
something like that happen in XForms?

I think it is a problem that XForms states that xsd:duration isn't 
supported as this holds for Full as well as Basic. 3rd part schemas 
could use one of these types and because of the wording in the spec in 
section 5.1 I believe the validation result and processing of the form 
is undefined. The same holds for |xsd:ENTITY|, |xsd:ENTITIES|, and 
|xsd:NOTATION.

|Best regards,
David
|
|
Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> xsd:duration has a problem when used as a concrete type.  Its subtypes,
> dayDateDuration and dateTimeDuration are well specified, but they are
> not commensurable; e.g., which is longer -- 29 days or one month? If you
> do a Google search on "xsd:duration" this issue shows up as the #2
> hit...
>
> So to avoid potential problems, someone (I believe Micah Dubinko)
> proposed that we require support only for the leaf types and leave
> xsd:duration as an abstract type. Somehow the rationale for this got
> left out.  I believe the belief at the time was that the XML Schema WG
> would be issuing such a note themselves.  It appears that this work got
> pushed to XPath 2.0 / XML Query according to some presentations by Ashok
> Malhotra.  Probably this issue will come up again in the context of
> XPath 2.0 but it should be clearer this time.
>
> Leigh. 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Allan Beaufour
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 7:42 AM
> To: David Landwehr
> Cc: www-forms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: xsd:duration datatype validation
>
>
> On 5/9/06, David Landwehr <david.landwehr@solidapp.com> wrote:
>   
>> I have reread section 5.1 again and again in relation to the
>>     
> discussion
>   
>> about datatype etc. Now I see that there are some IMO strange wording
>> regarding xsd:duration. This wording states: "XForms supports all XML
>> Schema datatypes
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/index-all.html#def-datatype> except for
>> |xsd:duration". What does this mean (e.g. what happens if a node has
>>     
> the
>   
>> type xsd:duration) and what is the intention of not including
>> xsd:duration. |
>>     
>
> Hmm, it also seems weird to me. I have no explanation for that.
>
> --
> ... Allan
>
>   


-- 
--------------------------------------------
David Landwehr (david.landwehr@solidapp.com)
Chief Executive Officer, SolidApp
Web: http://www.solidapp.com
Office: +45 48268212
Mobile: +45 24275518
--------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2006 08:25:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:04 GMT