Re: Changes to date/time datatypes

Ashok,

[I'm aware that <petsa@us.ibm.com> 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:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2001Mar/0040

Regards,
Misha


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] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/xmlschema-current/datatypes/datatypes.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/xmlschema-current/datatypes/diff.html
>
> 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
timeInstant
> to dateTime.
>
>
> All the best, Ashok
>


-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

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