Re: Changes to date/time datatypes


[I'm aware that <> may no longer be a functioning
email address, but I don't have a better one for you]

Many thanks for your mail.  The I18N WG's formal response is in:


On 23/01/2001 11:19:04 Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> At the XML Schema meeting in London last week the WG decided,
> in the main, to accept the suggested changes to the date/time datatypes
> described in the draft:
> [1]
> [2]
> The WG, however, declined to accept some of the more specific
> recommendations
> and recommended some changes.  These are discussed below.
> 1. The WG decided not to drop the three recurring datatypes monthDay,
> day and month.  They voted to keep their lexical representations as
>  --MM-DD, ---DD, and --MM--  on the grounds that they follow ISO 8601 and
> are unambiguous even without the datatype declaration.
> 2. When comparing timeDuration values with min/max facets the WG decided
> that indeterminate comparisons should always be considered false.
> Mark Davis sent mail questioning this decision and I have asked whether
> it may be reopened.
> 3. The WG also declined to accept Mark's suggestion for a canonical
> representation
> for timeDuration.  I have requested that the WG reopen this decision.
> 4. The WG agreed to change the name of timeDuration to duration and
> to dateTime.
> All the best, Ashok

        Visit our Internet site at

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 09:46:21 UTC