- From: Paul \ <paul@sparrow-hawk.org>
- Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:30:51 -0700
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, tantek@cs.stanford.edu, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, public-html-xml@w3.org
On 12/3/2011 1:18 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Toby Inkster scripsit: > >> ISO 8601 gives us a nice, standard notation for durations. I'd support >> subsetting it if there were massive disadvantages to adopting the >> full notation, but I don't think these disadvantages exist. I've >> written a parser for ISO 8601 durations before, and I can't recall >> the requirement to differentiate between 'M' before and after the 'T' >> being especially onerous to implement. > > I presume what's under discussion is the XML Schema subset of 8601, > which excludes duration in weeks (these take the form PnW meaning "n > 7-day weeks"). I'm not sure why these were excluded. The 1st or 2nd draft of Datatypes that I wrote had type for EVERYTHING in ISO 8601, include the week types and the full range of durations. My memory is a little sketchy about matters that far back and I'm not sure if those were just editor's drafts or if we published them. I also don't remember why the WG decided to take out those parts of 8601. Poking around a bit, I do see that xs:timePeriod was in the Jun 04 1999 WD [1]. pvb [1] https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/1999/06/xmlschema-2/#timePeriod
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 23:32:06 UTC