> we need only to represent days, months, and years.
As of XML Schema 1.1, "day" as a duration is nothing else than a multiple
of seconds. Any duration written in days may be rewritten to seconds and
the other way round: just divide or multiply by 86400. That's how
datatypes in XML Schema 1.1 works. I think that the concept of precision
may be useful for us and I would like to make use of it, but I would
prefer to formulate it another way and keep the concept of day duration as
of XML Schema 1.1 so that data exchange will be made easier.
> But is "2 years, 5 days" really meaningful?
According to XML Schema 1.1, this would mean a duration of 2x12 = 24
months (on the month dimension) plus 5x24x60x60 = 432000 seconds (on the
second dimension). I think it could make some sense in
which can not be easily rewritten as something else.
> So, the normalization rules would be different for a standalone duration
> than for a contextual duration.
Yes, of course!
> does anyone see a requirement for standalone duration?
This question must be asked, of course! I was just assuming that we were
discussing standalone durations. Contextual duration can always be reduced
to a number of seconds (and its multiples such as days, etc.) if the
start-point is known with a granularity no lower than that of the
I would like to ask whether we need CONTEXTUAL duration AS OF #005? Is
there a point with a start-duration interval (as of #005) if it always can
be rewritten as a start-end interval as of #004? Of course, contextual
duration may be useful in expressions such as:
but there is no example for that in the EDTF specification. Therefore, I
wonder whether we could move CONTEXTUAL durations to level one where they
could be useful (for example when the start-point is combined with "u"). I
do not find contextual durations useful at level zero as they are defined