- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 02:43:19 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6044
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@w3.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@w3.org> 2008-09-09 02:43:19 ---
Thank you for the comment.
Speaking for myself, I see your argument, and agree that at least in a wide
variety of applications it is persuasive. (I think that some applications
which omit time zone offset information do so because the offset is
understood, or at least consistent. [All stores in this chain will open
at 7 a.m. local time, and close at 11 p.m. local time. It is convenient
to have a sanity check to ensure that closing time is later than opening
time -- at least for businesses that do not stay open past midnight.]
Such applications might find it painful to lose comparability among values
without time zone offsets.)
But I wonder; I think changing the definition of equality for so many
values in the value space of this type could cause serious compatibility
issues for users of XSD 1.0. If you can suggest any ways of mitigating those
compatibility issues, please do so; otherwise, I'm afraid that the weight
of the existing implementations of XSD, XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0
are likely to make it impossible for the WG to follow the suggestion you
make here.
Would it be possible to define the indeterminacy of comparison at the
OWL level, overlaying the XSD comparison by effectively defining an
alternative partial ordering of the values?
--
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 02:43:54 UTC