W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2009

[Bug 3027] erroneous date example

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:22:24 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Mw63k-000149-UY@wiggum.w3.org>

--- Comment #11 from Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu>  2009-10-09 03:22:24 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Looking at the Apr 2009 recommendation, it looks like the proposed fix never
> made it into the recommendation.

(In reply to comment #10)
> FYI, I just read the following in the *time* section:
> Date values with different time zone offsets that were identical in the 1.0
> version of this specification, such as 2000-12-12+13:00 and
> 2000-12-11&#8722;11:00, are in this version of this specification equal
> (because they begin at the same moment on the time line) but are not identical
> (because they have and retain different time zone offsets).
> Perhaps the fix was applied to the wrong section.

Well, I've spent more time than it's probably worth trying to track down the
historical documentation of what happened, and I can't find it.  I do recall
several quite long discussions among some editors as to whether the original
problem was indeed a problem, that there was actually a related problem that
should be fixed.  I believe that fix was erroneously put into the master in the
wrong section ("time" instead of "date").

Some time later (and after the publication of the CR), one of the editors
noticed that the Note now in the "time" section) talked about dates rather than
times.  A bug report was filed, and in the current status quo, said note talks
about times and has time examples.  Anyone working from the current CR version
would not know about that.

In any case, I suspect that the original note should be put into the "date"
section (but I hope that will be rechecked--in any case, I believe the
inequalities quoted are not correct and should be changed if not replaced by
the note).  We should probably also check to make sure that the now-status-quo
note in "time" is really appropriate.


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 Friday, 9 October 2009 03:22:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:10 UTC