- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:46:45 -0700
- To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@definedweb.com>, <vdv@dyomedea.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Can we just let it go? I have suggested that the type library add two types -- dateWithTimezone and dateWithoutTimezone. These two types are totally ordered and this is what I think users should use. All the best, Ashok =========================================================== Ashok Malhotra <mailto: ashokma@microsoft.com> Microsoft Corporation 212 Hessian Hills Road Croton-On-Hudson, NY 10520 USA Redmond: 425-703-9462 New York: 914-271-6477 -----Original Message----- From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 5:28 PM To: Henry S. Thompson Cc: Jeff Rafter; vdv@dyomedea.com; xmlschema-dev@w3.org Subject: Re: Date Henry Thompson writes: >> I actually find it pretty surprising that >> your users think 12:00:00Z is >> different from 13:00:00+1 Well, only on the very practical sense that they may wish to ask: "In what time zone was the time recorded? Roughtly, did you write that at noon in Boston or 5PM in the UK? If I put a time on a draft of a technical report, for example, certain users will feel that something is lost if I record it as 3PM in whatever timezone, and it comes back as 1AM in some other (presuming someone has read in the value and rewritten as canonical, for example.) It's not broken, just doesn't always do what you might want or expect. By the way, this should not be taken as a comment reflecting the needs of Lotus users in particular (that was true of the other comment on legal changes affecting timezones.) I have just seen various correspondents on our mailing lists presume that the time zone was reflected in the value space, and wanted to clarify. >> ...when there were 25 disjoint value spaces. I don't remember that in detail, but you are probably right. I thought I remembered a proposal to explictly add the timezone as a field in a tuple representing the value in what I took to be a single value space. Presumably, that would have led to the equality relation (enumeration facet, etc.) requiring a timezone match. I also think but am not sure that we would have had some freedom in defining ">" and "<"> In any case, all of that is history, and I certainly have no need to pursue this issue. Whatever the merits, it was debated quite clearly at the appropriate time, and the schema WG made a decision that is reasonable, though probably not the one I would have made. I don't think there is any new information since then. I was merely trying to clarify for readers of schema dev the way that timezones do and don't affect the semantics, and unfortunately I somewhat confused things by giving a partially bogus clarification. So, unless others want to continue, I think we can let this go. Thanks very much. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2001 20:57:18 UTC