- From: Xan Gregg <xan@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 08:30:16 -0400
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Introducing a new structure, datetime tuples, to capture the info you
want for datetime types is a good idea, but why not use a real, named
XML Schema type, as is done for duration? Of course, it's not
completely analogous because the value space is expanded by the tuple
rather than restricted as is the case for the new duration types. The
tuple seems too magical when there are more transparent options
available.
Here is a simpleType that captures (a superset of) the value space for
the tuple.
<xs:simpleType name="datetimeTZ">
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation>
A "list" of a datetime/duration union with the convention
that list always has two items: the first item is a datetime
and the second item is a duration.
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:list itemType="datetimeORduration"/>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType name="datetimeORduration">
<xs:union memberTypes="xs:datetime xs:duration"/>
</xs:simpleType>
Most datetime F&O functions would operate on xdt:datetimeTZ instead of
xs:datetime, just as functions operate on xdt:*Duration instead of
xs:duration.
While there is a lexial representation for datetimeTZ (as a two-value
list), F&O or FS would define functions/casts to convert datetimeTZ to
the timezoned datetime lexical representation and back.
I'm sure the WG has been round and round on this issue, but in case you
have considered the above option, please do.
xan
Xan Gregg
TIBCO Software, Inc.
www.tibco.com
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 08:46:31 UTC