- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:48:28 -0500
- To: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Cc: tantek@cs.stanford.edu, 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
Liam R E Quin scripsit: > XSD already has date/time types; sometimes an increase in > interoperability (here by specifying an additional mapping from a > lexical form, probbably) is worth while even at CR. I don't think you can add year-and-week just as an additional mapping; it is not commensurable with any existing XSD types. It most closely resembles gYear, gYearMonth, and date, representing a specific interval of time, but one whose length is 7 days rather than a year, a month, or a day. It needs to be a new gYearWeek type, as Jeni said. > Preserving timezones would be harder, since currently XSD times are > historical (or extensionally defined), not intensional - there's no way > in XSD to represent "the third Tuesday of the month" for exampel, or > "8am local time, varying in UTC depending on the status of daylight > savings time" for example. > > I think adding intensional time would be a significant change, and Mike > Kay's idea of a separate document makes sense there. >From what I understand, this is not the issue: the issue is that there is no XSD type corresponding to a bare time zone offset. This could be treated as an integer type with a range of -24*60 to +24*60. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the British Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1. I doubt if the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:49:05 UTC