[Bug 6043] Pls define a restriction of dateTime with required timezones

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6043


C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@w3.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Keywords|                            |needsAgreement




--- Comment #1 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@w3.org>  2008-09-09 02:34:57 ---
If as you suggest a great many applications really should require explicit
time offset information in all dateTime values, then I see the rationale for
defining such a derived type in the XSD spec, analogous to the definition
there of the totally ordered subtypes of duration (added in 1.1 vis-a-vis
1.0).

Two considerations worry me ever so slightly (I am speaking now only for
myself, not for the XML Schema WG).  Simple considerations of symmetry 
suggest that a restriction which requires time zone offset information
ought, on principle, to be twinned with a restriction which forbids time 
zone offset information (for use, perhaps, in applications which cannot
always use offset information -- e.g. because like the W3C telcon bridges
the application uses times, including future times, tied to civil time zones, 
which have variable offaet from UTC.  

A similar consideration suggests that if we define such restrictions for
dateTime, we ought perhaps also to do so for each of the date/time-related
types which can currently bear a time zone offset.  That is, pretty much
all of them.  All told, that would be sixteen new derived datatypes, if both
of these lines of thought were followed.  As an editor of the spec, I feel
my heart quailing at the prospect. 

Can we identify a rationale for specifying just one (or just a few) of these
sixteen types, and not all sixteen?

I should note also that if the XML Schema WG fails to add the datatype you
want, the OWL WG can of course define the datatype yourselves.  I believe,
however, that your reason for suggesting we do it is that you think it 
better done in the XSD spec, and not that you don't realize you can define 
it yourselves.  (If I'm wrong on this, please set me straight.)


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 02:42:04 UTC