W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: <time> values in HTML5

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 15:18:40 -0500
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: tantek@cs.stanford.edu, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-ID: <20111203201840.GB8325@mercury.ccil.org>
Toby Inkster scripsit:

> ISO 8601 gives us a nice, standard notation for durations. I'd support
> subsetting it if there were massive disadvantages to adopting the
> full notation, but I don't think these disadvantages exist. I've
> written a parser for ISO 8601 durations before, and I can't recall
> the requirement to differentiate between 'M' before and after the 'T'
> being especially onerous to implement.

I presume what's under discussion is the XML Schema subset of 8601,
which excludes duration in weeks (these take the form PnW meaning "n
7-day weeks").  I'm not sure why these were excluded.

Note that contrary to what XML Schema Part 2 says, the underlying value
space of a duration is two-dimensional: months and seconds.  We need two
because the number of seconds in a month depends on what month it is,
whereas years can be reliably reduced to months, and days/hours/minutes
can be reliably reduced to seconds (given that XML Schema does not permit
talk of leap seconds).  XML Schema 1.1 gets this right.

By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall     cowan@ccil.org
have neither the Ring nor me!  --Frodo          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 20:19:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:11 UTC