- From: <petsa@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:40:29 -0500
- To: "Nishiseki, Ernest" <NishisekiE@DNB.com>
- cc: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Ernest: Thank you for your question. We decided not to allow truncated representations because there is an ambiguity about the meaning. Take for example, 2000-03-25T23. Does this mean the instant 2000-03-25T23:00:00 or does it means the hour that starts at 2000-03-25T23:00:00. We have extensively revised the date and time datatypes. These will be reflected in the next WD. We would appreciate your comments. All the best, Ashok "Nishiseki, Ernest" <NishisekiE@DNB.com>@w3.org on 03/03/2000 10:35:26 AM Sent by: www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org To: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org> cc: Subject: Question on Data types Hello, I have been looking through the XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes W3C Working Draft 25 February 2000 and have a question concerning the lexical representation of the timeInstant datatype (section 3.2.6.1 timeInstant Lexical Representation). Does the timeInstant lexical representation support the ISO 8601 reduced precision formats of time (i.e., can the fraction of seconds, seconds, minutes be omitted). So, for example, are the following valid timeInstant literals: 2000-03-25T23:30:25 2000-03-25T23:30 2000-03-25T23 Also, is the same concept of reduced precision for time permissible in the recurringInstant and time datatypes? Thanks, Ernest Nishiseki Senior Architect Dun & Bradstreet 220 East 42nd Street, 9th Floor New York, N.Y. 10017 Tel: (212) 883-3466 Fax: (212) 557-8200 email: nishisekie@dnb.com
Received on Friday, 10 March 2000 09:40:51 UTC