Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks

Rogers, Tony wrote:

> What? I can't tell someone to retry after a millennium? :-)
>  
> You are assuming a unit of measure of milliseconds. If we move to a 
> unit of say, microseconds, then an xs:unsignedInt becomes inadequate. 
> I'd rather use a 64 bit integer to ensure that we have heaps of headroom.

+1.

>  
> Tony Rogers
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Rich Salz
>     *Sent:* Tue 01-Mar-05 6:43
>     *To:* Jonathan Marsh
>     *Cc:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>     *Subject:* Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks
>
>
>     > tooling.  I propose we define RetryAfter as xs:unsignedLong.
>
>     Hmm, /1000/86400/365.25/1000000 means about 584 million years, right?
>     If you pick xs:unsignedInt we fit into 32 bits and get /1000/86400 or
>     about 49 days.
>
>     I propose we define RetryAfter as xs:unsignedInt
>
>             /r$, looking forward to seeing you folks tomorrow :)
>     --
>     Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
>     DataPower Technology                          
>     http://www.datapower.com
>     XS40 XML Security Gateway  
>     http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
>
>