W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2001

RE: Year 0000

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:44:29 -0700
Message-ID: <E5B814702B65CB4DA51644580E4853FB90731A@red-msg-12.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <zongaro@ca.ibm.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Which version of 8601 did you check?
The 1998 version says in section 5.2.1
"In the Gregorian calendar consecutive calendar years consecutive years
are identified by consecutive numbers, except for the calendar year
[-0001] which is followed by the year [0001]"
 
In the 2000 version, I only found a note that said in section 4.3.2.1
that in the prolaptic [sic] Gregorian calendar the year 0000  is a leap
year.
 
In which section did you see the year 0000 mentioned?
 
Ashok
 
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: zongaro@ca.ibm.com 
	Sent: Thu 8/9/2001 2:02 PM 
	To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Year 0000
	
	

	
	Hello, 
	
	     I just saw a copy of ISO 8601:2000.  I was surprised to
discover that it defines 0000 to be a valid year, unlike the
specification of dateTime in the "XML Schema:  Datatypes" recommendation
[1].  I gather that in ISO 8601:2000, the year 0000 is roughly
equivalent to what people usually refer to as 1BC, and is a leap year. 
	
	     Should dateTime follow ISO 8601:2000 in this respect?
	
	Thanks,
	
	Henry 
	[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#dateTime
	
------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Henry Zongaro      XML Parsers development
	IBM SWS Toronto Lab   Tie Line 778-6044;  Phone (416) 448-6044
	mailto:zongaro@ca.ibm.com
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2001 17:47:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:51 GMT