W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2006

[Bug 2497] R-127: Distinction between 00:00:00 and 24:00:00 for time datatype?

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:31:44 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1GaOdE-0007Uo-6w@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2497


davep@iit.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|3851                        |
              nThis|                            |




------- Comment #2 from davep@iit.edu  2006-10-19 03:31 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> After discussion the F&O adopted the following wording "For xs:time, "00:00:00"
> and "24:00:00" are alternate lexical forms for the same value. For xs:dateTime,
> a time component "24:00:00" translates to "00:00:00" of the following day."
> 
> As pointed out in bug 2116, the problem is in the order relation on these time
> values.  If 24:00:00 is, indeed, 00:00:00 of the following day then it is later
> than 00:00:00.

My recollection is that the WG discussed this and decided it wasn't worth
making a special case for time.  However, the best I can find is that Ashok and
I were given an action by the WG 18 Nov 05 to "investigate, bring back proposed
fix(es) or reason why none required [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2005/11/18-xmlschema-minutes.html#action01]".  Ashok
responded with Comment #1 herein, stating the F&O position.

OTOH, In researching this I find that there is an error in the function
·newDateTime· in that it doesn't normailze the hour, mapping a '24' hourFrag to
the hour coordinate value 24, which is illegal.  I am therefore entering a new
bug (3851) to insure this is fixed.
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 03:32:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:11 GMT