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  September 2011

DATETIME September 2011

Subject:

string

From:

"Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:27:56 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (44 lines)

Saašha pointed out (several messages ago in mid August) that 'string' is not yet defined. 

I think it should be defined simply in terms of a character set. I don't think that we want to define it in terms of qname.  I understand that the capability to namespace will be important. We can simply include the colon (":") in the character set that defines 'string' and people can develop vocabularies based on qnames or not as they see fit. 

The question is, what should be that character set?  (Suggestions?)

--Ray


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Saašha Metsärantala
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:15 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Season
> 
> Hello!
> 
> > QNames are highly controversial.
> I think we agree that we won't use xs:QName for qualifiers as of phase
> one. Maybe we could move this interesting topic to phase two and try to
> focus on what can be useful for phase one.
> 
> My main suggestion was to exclude from EDTF qualifiers (phase one), all
> characters excluded by xs:NCName (such as space and colon).
> 
> In other words: Could we agree on xs:NCName or a subset thereof?
> 
> One possible, but very limited subset of xs:NCName would be qualifiers
> matching
> 
> ^[a-z][A-Z0-9]*$
> 
> (or similar depending on which regex flavor you use), but we would
> probably prefer to be able to use other alphabets and characters, too.
> 
> Maybe xs:NCName is too wide for EDTF qualifiers. In that case, the
> question is: Which of the characters allowed within xs:NCName should be
> excluded to create the datatype for EDTF qualifiers?
> 
> 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