W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: 3.2.7.3.B.1.1/2 (dateTime order relation)

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 12:21:02 -0700
Message-ID: <E5B814702B65CB4DA51644580E4853FB019EEB58@red-msg-12.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>, "XML Schema Comments" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
James:
You seem to be correct but the rules do no harm as their conditions are
never satisfied.  Do you really want an errata? 

All the best, Ashok 
===========================================================



-----Original Message-----
From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@jclark.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 10:02 PM
To: XML Schema Comments
Subject: 3.2.7.3.B.1.1/2 (dateTime order relation)

In section 3.2.7.3 on the order relation of dateTime, at B.1, it says:
  1.. If P[i] and Q[i] are both not specified, continue to the next i
  2.. If P[i] is not specified and Q[i] is, or vice versa, stop and
return P
<> Q
This doesn't make any sense to me.  When could P[i] or Q[i] be "not
specified"? In dateTime all fields are specified.

When things like gYearMonth appeal to the dateTime order, they do so by
saying eg "the order relation on gYearMonth values is the order relation
on
their starting instants", so in this case also all fields are totally
specified.

I think the above two sentences should be deleted.

James
Received on Saturday, 27 April 2002 15:21:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:00 GMT