- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:32:54 -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: > Year-Week-Day can easily map into an existing type, of course, as can > Year-Week, if one takes just the first day of the week as the point to > map. By the same token, you could map gYears onto a date (September 22, say) and gYearMonths too (onto the Ides, for example). But the interval meaning of these types is extensional, not intensional: "1066" as a gYear means the whole of that year, and not merely, say, October 14 at 0900 UTC. > The bigger aspect is that if the "time" element is there to do > iCal-like work, it needs to represent things like recurring events, > and XSD lacks that concept, and so do the other specs using XSD for > their type system, They are not entirely absent: gMonth, gMonthDay, and time are recurring intervals. But it's true that *general* recurring intervals are lacking. > One such change might be to have the XSD spec link to a public > registry a bit like the XPointer registry, but for new Schema types. That seems a fine idea, provided it is understood that implementing the registry is not a conformance requirement, merely a SHOULD. > This also raises the question, long term, of what to do about future > change requests to XSD after the current WG has closed. Adopt DTLL while you still can? -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup, James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 19:33:19 UTC