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

[Bug 2130] R-141: Changes suggested re: dateTime order relation

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:24:17 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1EDlfl-0000Lh-PW@wiggum.w3.org>


           Summary: R-141: Changes suggested re: dateTime order relation
           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

In section 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.

Received on Friday, 9 September 2005 16:24:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:04 UTC