- From: Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:34:48 -0500
- To: Schema Comments <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
[N.B.: This msg was sent to steve.hanna@sun.com on 28 Oct 2005 -DP] Steve: I've just had occasion to review your comment; let me point out the following. You wrote: >However, the algorithm I described for calculating answer 2 >above is not easily inferred from the specification. The >specification says "The order relation on time values is the >Order relation on dateTime (section 3.2.7.3) using an >arbitrary date." We believe that this means that for time >values with time zones, you must normalize the dates into a >single 24 hour period before applying the Order relation on >dateTime. An easy way to do this is to normalize the time >values to UTC and then assign an arbitrary year-month-day >value to them. But a more natural interpretation of the spec >would be to skip the normalization step and just assign the >year-month-day value. This will probably work just fine until >you encounter a situation like the one given above. We ran into >this while working on an XACML implementation (which uses the >XML Schema ordering for time values). Your "Answer 1" was obviously correct, and it *is* obvious if you realize that the *values* 2002-02-16T09:00:00+12:00 and 2002-02-16T09:00:00-12:00 are identical. The two lexical representations '2002-02-16T09:00:00+12:00' and '2002-02-16T09:00:00+12:00' map to the same value. The possible confusion comes from forgetting that lexical representations are not values. Since the only question was whether Answer 1 was sufficiently obvious (you give the argument why it's correct in your own msg), I don't expect the Schema WG will make any official response. It came up in the WG as they were going through a list of all not-known-to-be-closed issues. FYI, in Schema 1.1, now in preparation, things are being changed to more closely align with QT. date/time values will "know" their timezones. I suppose if nothing ever changed, guys like us would be working for minimum wage.... ;-) -- Dave Peterson SGMLWorks! davep@iit.edu -- Dave Peterson SGMLWorks! davep@iit.edu
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 16:39:48 UTC