- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:13:44 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
For info; when we get stuck into the detail of our work on XML Schema datatypes, we'll want to bear in mind that there is some bugfix work going on with that spec too. See below for msg from Paul Biron regarding a problem with the specification of gMonth. Dan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:00:48 -0700 From: "Biron,Paul V" <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org> To: 'xmlschema-dev' <xmlschema-dev@w3.org> Subject: real world usage of gMonth Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: xmlschema-dev@w3.org The WG has discovered that lexical represenation specified in the schema Rec for the type gMonth does not match the truncted form of ISO 8601 as we had intended. Briefly, the lexical forms are as follows: Rec (erroneous) 8601 (correct) gMonth --MM-- --MM The WG has tentatively resolved to publish an erratum : 1. noting the incorrect form in the Rec (i.e., declare it as invalid) 2. and specifying the correct lexical forms. However, before we institute this decision, we are seeking input on this how would affect schemas and instances in existence already. If we declare the "--MM--" form invalid would that adversely affect anyone's schemas or instances? Please let us know. An alternative resolution the WG has discussed is to publish an erratum: 1. specifying the correct form 2. deprecate the "--MM--" form (i.e., still legal for v1.0 processors) 3. declare the "--MM--" form invalid for v1.1 and later processors thanx for your input pvb
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 19:13:44 UTC