- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:48:48 -0700
- To: "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>, "XML Schema Comments" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "w3c-xml-schema-ig" <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>
James: Good point. I'm sending this to the Schema IG list as potential errata. All the best, Ashok =========================================================== -----Original Message----- From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@jclark.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 10:16 PM To: XML Schema Comments Subject: Order relation on gMonthDay, gMonth, gDay The order relation on date is specified as: "If date values are considered as periods of time, the order relation on date values is the order relation on their starting instants." This makes sense to me. The order relation on time is specified as: "The order relation on time values is the Order relation on dateTime (§3.2.7.3) using an arbitrary date." This also makes sense to me. Now consider the order relation on eg gMonthDay: "If gMonthDay values are considered as periods of time, the order relation on gMonthDay values is the order relation on their starting instants." I don't think this is quite right. A gMonthDay is not a single period of time but a recurring period. The dateTime ordering relation compares two specific instants of time. Thus in order to turn a gMonthDay into a specific instant of time, you need to use an arbitrary year (just as with time you need to use an arbitrary date). However, I'm guessing --02-29 is allowed as a gMonthDay; if so, the year is not an arbitrary year but an arbitrary leap year. So the spec should say something like: "If gMonthDay values are considered as periods of time using an arbitrary leap year, ..." Similarly, for gMonth and gDay. James
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 09:49:20 UTC