LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  January 2011

DATETIME January 2011

Subject:

Re: dual representations

From:

"Edward C. Zimmermann" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:47:31 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (45 lines)

Tossing a wacky idea into the ring...
Why not read the semantics for T as time since 0..
2011-01-17 is day precision
2011-01-17T01 is hour precision and means 1 AM
2011-01-17T01:02 is minute precision and means 1:02 AM
This all agreed.. with this reading of T we get the T:24:00 and
T12:60 paradigm extended to arbitary hours, minutes..
2011-01-17T25 would be hour precision and 1 AM on the 18th
basically I am thinking of allowing for simple math... this could
be interesting for dumb clients.
A process, for example, might return a date-time and a client wants
to specify a date-time 6 hours and 12 minutes later.. with this model
the clients do not need to know the calendar (how many days in the
month etc.).. We would specify a normative (max. 23 hours and 59 min)
but have multiple semantically equivalent representations for any
given date-time assertion.
Parsing and normalization is easy enough ..

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:56:52 -0500, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote
> From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 12:38 PM
> > On this topic, it may be worth mentioning that contrary to what I
> > believe the EDTF spec says, the form "24:00:00" is defined and legal in
> > the relevant XSD datatypes; the lexical forms '2011-01-17T24:00:00' and
> > '2011-01-18T00:00:00' have the same value.
>
> Yes, the spec does imply that these are not valid in xs:dateTime,
> and you're right, they are valid (I just now tested them).
>
> This changes my view on the matter, I cannot see a justification to profile
> these out. In fact, if the xsd data types are cited as "profiled
> in" I don't even think these need to be cited as special cases.
>
> Thanks, Michael.
>
> --Ray


--

Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts
http://www.nonmonotonic.net
Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager