W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Date

From: Jeff Rafter <jeffrafter@definedweb.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 14:14:02 -0700
Message-ID: <00e501c10597$6a9eff10$f181fea9@lazarus>
To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
[snip]

> I would have preferred to allow no timezone at all than one that
> has such minimal effect on  semantics and comparison.

Wow, glad to hear I am not alone in my dislike of the additional Time Zone
Qualifiers-- especially with changing the semantics of the ISO.  To be
honest, I am surprised you guys were able to get the rec out the door after
all that contreversy surrounding the date/time types.  You all deserve some
high praise for the ability to compromise!  I am much happier with a Schema
rec than I am unhappy with the Time Zone Qualifiers.

> On the other hand, this should be taken as a warning
> that solving users' problems with timezones is not nearly as easy as it
> appears, and sometimes it is better to do less than to add complexity that
> doesn't solve the problem.  For better or worse, schemas effectively
> provides timezone markers primarily as a convenience to those recording
> times in an XML document;  it carries little or no semantics compared to
> the same time in UTC.

That is a scary warning...

Ultimately introducing this modified date time type will be difficult-- I am
wondering if there is a way to modify the lexical space without affecting
the value space. If there was a way, then we may be able to have future
types that use Month and Day names as well-- localized to specific languages
even.  It seems what XML Schemas need is a way to concatenate simpleTypes
(rather than a simple union).  The need for this has come up a lot and would
be a perfect construct here.

Regards,

Jeff Rafter
Defined Systems
http://www.defined.net
XML Development and Developer Web Hosting
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 17:14:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:22 GMT