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

RE: Duration lexical form?

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 05:18:37 -0800
Message-ID: <E5B814702B65CB4DA51644580E4853FB03DA7752@red-msg-12.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Ross Thompson" <ross@contivo.com>, "W3C XML Schema Comments list" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>

Ross:
Take a look at E2-23 in the errata.  This restricts the lexical form of duration components to arbitrary *unsigned* integers, etc.

All the best, Ashok

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Thompson [mailto:ross@contivo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:59 PM
To: W3C XML Schema Comments list
Subject: Duration lexical form?






I can't confirm this hasn't already been mentioned, since there is no
2E yet for part 2.  However, in reading 1E, I see the following:

Section 3.2.6.1, second paragraph

     The values of the Year, Month, Day, Hour and Minutes components
     are not restricted but allow an arbitrary integer. Similarly, the
     value of the Seconds component allows an arbitrary decimal. Thus,
     the lexical representation of duration does not follow the
     alternative format of  5.5.3.2.1 of [ISO 8601].

Arbitrary integer?  So, like -3?  I see nothing that prohibits
P12Y4M-3D except in the last paragraph of this subsection, which is
too chatty to feel normative.

Should the first two quoted sentences above prose not read

     The values of the Year, Month, Day, Hour and Minutes components
     are not restricted but allow an arbitrary __non-negative__
     integer.  Similarly, the value of the Seconds component allows an
     arbitrary __non-negative__ decimal.

?

- Roß

---
Dyslexics untie! 
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 08:19:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:01 GMT