- 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