- 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
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 20:19:16 UTC