- From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:14:49 -0700
- To: <www-forms@w3.org>
- Cc: "David Landwehr" <david.landwehr@solidapp.com>, "Allan Beaufour" <beaufour@gmail.com>
xsd:duration has a problem when used as a concrete type. Its subtypes, dayDateDuration and dateTimeDuration are well specified, but they are not commensurable; e.g., which is longer -- 29 days or one month? If you do a Google search on "xsd:duration" this issue shows up as the #2 hit... So to avoid potential problems, someone (I believe Micah Dubinko) proposed that we require support only for the leaf types and leave xsd:duration as an abstract type. Somehow the rationale for this got left out. I believe the belief at the time was that the XML Schema WG would be issuing such a note themselves. It appears that this work got pushed to XPath 2.0 / XML Query according to some presentations by Ashok Malhotra. Probably this issue will come up again in the context of XPath 2.0 but it should be clearer this time. Leigh. -----Original Message----- From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Allan Beaufour Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 7:42 AM To: David Landwehr Cc: www-forms@w3.org Subject: Re: xsd:duration datatype validation On 5/9/06, David Landwehr <david.landwehr@solidapp.com> wrote: > I have reread section 5.1 again and again in relation to the discussion > about datatype etc. Now I see that there are some IMO strange wording > regarding xsd:duration. This wording states: "XForms supports all XML > Schema datatypes > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/index-all.html#def-datatype> except for > |xsd:duration". What does this mean (e.g. what happens if a node has the > type xsd:duration) and what is the intention of not including > xsd:duration. | Hmm, it also seems weird to me. I have no explanation for that. -- ... Allan
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2006 21:15:26 UTC