- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:12:22 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3377 mike@saxonica.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Comment #3 from mike@saxonica.com 2006-06-23 13:12 ------- The Working Group discussed your comment and agreed it would be useful to add some editorial text to the example explaining why the result is what it is, along the lines of the explanation in comment #1. (There is a detailed suggestion in the meeting minutes - member only). Concerning your supplementary questions, since these are not comments on the specification, it might be better to raise them on a forum such as query-talk at xquery.com. I don't think your calculations are correct, as it happens: * xs:time("00:00:00") and xs:time("00:00:00-01:00") will only be equal if the implicit timezone is -01:00 * xs:time("00:00:00+01:00") and xs:time("24:00:00+05:00") will never be equal * xs:time("00:00:00") and xs:time("24:00:00+09:00") will be equal only if the implicit timezone is +09:00. But the part of the rule that's relevant to this comment is that in any comparison of two xs:time values, 24:00:00 gives the same result as 00:00:00 (in the same timezone, or in no timezone if there is none). I'm marking this as FIXED and CLOSED on the basis that we decided to make the example more clear. If you are not happy with this closure, please reopen the bug. If you want further help in understanding the specification, I would suggest you use a different forum. Michael Kay for the XSL and XQuery Working Groups
Received on Friday, 23 June 2006 13:12:34 UTC