W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2005

[Bug 2080] R-090: Questions about the lexical and canonical rep'ns of dateTime

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:14:56 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1EDZLs-0004i6-Ep@wiggum.w3.org>


           Summary: R-090: Questions about the lexical and canonical rep'ns
                    of dateTime
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.0
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XSD Part 2: Datatypes
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: sandygao@ca.ibm.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org

Sections and of the Datatypes Recommendation define the lexical 
and canonical representations of the dateTime datatype, respectively. Section states, in part that:

"Additional digits can be used to increase the precision of fractional seconds 
if desired i.e the format ss.ss... with any number of digits after the decimal 
point is supported. To accommodate year values greater than 9999 additional 
digits can be added to the left of this representation."


Unlike the definition of decimal (3.2.3), this definition doesn't specify the 
minimum number of additional year digits nor the minimum number of additional 
digits in the fractional portion of the seconds that needs to be supported by a 
processor. Does a processor really need to be prepared to handle an arbitrary 
number of digits? Obviously this can have a significant effect on an 
ISO 8601 specifies that 24:00:00 of one day is the same as 00:00:00 of the 
following day. Which is the permitted form in the canonical representations of 
the various types? 

Received on Friday, 9 September 2005 03:15:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:03 UTC