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

Reason for change between CR and Rec.

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:20:13 -0800
Message-ID: <E5B814702B65CB4DA51644580E4853FB01488607@red-msg-12.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@dyomedea.com>
Cc: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
First of all, apologies for taking so long to reply to your message on 10/28 below.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2001OctDec/0107.html

You asked a general question, so I'm not sure exactly what you were after.  If this answer 
is not to the question you asked, please ask again.

I believe you are referring to the general structure for deriving date/time types that was in the CR.
The reason we removed this and ended up with specific, primitive date/time types were:

1)	The general structure let you define date/time types that were meaningless and that no one would support e.g. a period of 3 days occurring every five days.
2)	XML Schema datatypes define a particular mechanism for type derivation.  This mechanism could not be applied to the general structure to create useful types such as date and time.


All the best, Ashok 
===========================================================
Message-ID: <3BDBDD24.7030204@dyomedea.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 11:25:40 +0100
From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com <mailto:vdv@dyomedea.com?Subject=Re:%20Reason%20for%20change%20between%20CR%20and%20Rec.&In-Reply-To=%3c3BDBDD24.7030204@dyomedea.com%3e&References=%3c3BDBDD24.7030204@dyomedea.com%3e> >
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org <mailto:www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org?Subject=Re:%20Reason%20for%20change%20between%20CR%20and%20Rec.&In-Reply-To=%3c3BDBDD24.7030204@dyomedea.com%3e&References=%3c3BDBDD24.7030204@dyomedea.com%3e> 
Subject: Reason for change between CR and Rec.

The CR release of W3C XML Schema was much closer to ISO 8061 by defining 
fewer primitive related datatypes and more facets derive arbitrary user 
defined datatypes.

The overall mechanism was probably more complex, but some features such 
as defining recurring points in time with arbitrary periods have been 
sacrified to this simplification.

Could someone from the WG be kind enough to summarize the reasons which 
had led to this decision?

Thanks

Eric (not wanting to be critical, but just to understand)
-- 
Rendez-vous  Paris pour le Forum XML.
                    http://www.technoforum.fr/Pages/forumXML01/index.html
 
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 19:20:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:57 GMT