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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  April 2011

DATETIME April 2011

Subject:

Re: internal uncertain/approximate LAST CALL

From:

Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 6 Apr 2011 19:48:57 +0200

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (67 lines)

Hello!

I've made some clarifications to an e-mail I sent to the list yesterday, 
but which didn't came to
http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind1104&L=datetime (yet). I resend 
this (hopefully clarified) e-mail now.

> internal uncertain/approximate. If
> you care about it, please speak up.
There was an agreement on the need for these features and therefore, I 
would really like to incorporate these features in our BNF. I consider, 
though, that other things may need to be done before we can focus on 
internal uncertain / approximate.

I would suggest the following plan:

1. As of today, our specification is ambiguous. On the one hand, we 
exclude leap seconds in accordance with the W3C XML Schema 1.1 as 
explained at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dt-leapsec and I consider it is OK. On 
the other hand, the specification uses the term "time zone" (as the W3C 
XML Schema 1.0 does), in circumstances where the W3C XML Schema 1.1 would 
(as I interpret it) probably use the term "(time) zone offset" (read the 
"Note" a few lines below
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#con-dateTime-day and further at
http://www.w3.org/TR/timezone/#d2e226 for details). I would like to avoid 
this mixture of both versions of the W3C XML Schema in our specification.

In our specification the wording "W3C XML Schema" thus sometimes refers to 
the W3C XML Schema version 1.0 and sometimes to the W3C XML Schema version 
1.1 and I consider that this is the first thing we should focus on. These 
two schemas are different and the readers need to know which of these our 
specification refers to. I suggest to agree on one version and document 
this choice in the specification. Version 1.0 *is* a recommendation and 
thus stable, but it has some obvious drawbacks - it neglects the 
difference between "time zone" and "(time) zone offset" for example. 
Version 1.1 is (probably) better, but it is not a recommendation (yet) and 
thus it may be changed, which could lead to (minor?) problems for us if we 
choose it. Let's document the motivations for our choice and use the 
appropriate schema consistently in our specification!

2. Thereafter, in light of the choice we made above, I would suggest to 
correct the mismatches still remaining between our BNF and our 
specification, for example within lists.

3. Thereafter, we could modify our specification to make it stricter (even 
when it is not inconsistent), still sticking to the chosen version of the 
W3C XML Schema when applicable. This would make it easier to discover 
invalid values in instances.

4. (optional step) Thereafter, I would suggest to rework our specification 
to make the lexical space more strict, even where the W3C XML Schemas are 
not so strict. Thus, we could achieve (or at least strive towards) an 
injective relation from the lexical space to the value space - at least 
within the (proleptic) Gregorian calendar. Of course, both these spaces 
would remain valid according to the chosen version of the W3C XML Schema 
when applicable.

5. Now, it is time to expand the BNF to include internal uncertain / 
approximate.

What do you think about this plan? Comments are welcome!

Regards!

Saašha,

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