RE: Question on Data types

Ashok,

Thanks for your responses to my inquiry about the timeInstant and Time
datatypes.  I
understand your reasoning for not allowing reduced precision for Time and we
have no
problem with that.

You mentioned that the date and time datatypes have been extensively revised
for the
next working draft.

Will you retain the ISO 8601 extended format for date and time as a valid
lexical format?
We would prefer that the ISO 8601 extended format be retained as a valid
choice for
lexical format.

Can you disclose when the next working draft of the Datatypes part of XML
Schema will
be available?

Thanks,

Ernest Nishiseki,
Senior Architect
Dun & Bradstreet
220 East 42nd Street, 9th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10017
Tel: (212) 883-3466
e-mail: nishisekie@dnb.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	petsa@us.ibm.com [SMTP:petsa@us.ibm.com]
> Sent:	Friday, March 10, 2000 9:40 AM
> To:	Nishiseki, Ernest
> Cc:	'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'
> Subject:	Re: Question on Data types
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 21 March 2000 12:12:33 UTC