- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:31:44 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2497 davep@iit.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|3851 | nThis| | ------- Comment #2 from davep@iit.edu 2006-10-19 03:31 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > After discussion the F&O adopted the following wording "For xs:time, "00:00:00" > and "24:00:00" are alternate lexical forms for the same value. For xs:dateTime, > a time component "24:00:00" translates to "00:00:00" of the following day." > > As pointed out in bug 2116, the problem is in the order relation on these time > values. If 24:00:00 is, indeed, 00:00:00 of the following day then it is later > than 00:00:00. My recollection is that the WG discussed this and decided it wasn't worth making a special case for time. However, the best I can find is that Ashok and I were given an action by the WG 18 Nov 05 to "investigate, bring back proposed fix(es) or reason why none required [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/18-xmlschema-minutes.html#action01]". Ashok responded with Comment #1 herein, stating the F&O position. OTOH, In researching this I find that there is an error in the function ·newDateTime· in that it doesn't normailze the hour, mapping a '24' hourFrag to the hour coordinate value 24, which is illegal. I am therefore entering a new bug (3851) to insure this is fixed.
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 03:32:03 UTC