http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6043 Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mike@saxonica.com --- Comment #2 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2008-09-09 07:58:13 --- My reaction was similar - I don't like the idea of 16 new datatypes. Chronology already accounts for far more than its fair share of the Part 2 specification. Perhaps though there is a case for a facet to make the timezone offset required or disallowed. OK, it can be done using patterns, but that doesn't really capture the semantics very well, and is impossible for applications to recognize and treat specially. The existence of types that recognizably require or disallow timezone information is certainly something an XPath optimizer could take advantage of: at present code has to be generated for the worst case, where operations contain a mixture of values with an without timezone offsets, when in practice the mixed case is very rare. But the existence of a facet would be enough to provide this information, it doesn't need built-in derived types. (personal response, of course) -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 07:58:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:16 GMT