Re: XML-like date/time support ?

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le dimanche 08 janvier 2006 à 18:14 -0800, Paul Eggert a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/>
> 
> > Yep, the xml schema is the official specification from hell everyone
> > wants to forget
> 
> But if it's the official one, it's the one that "date" should conform to, no?
> 
> > it'll get superseded by something more sane like relax NG in time.
> 
> Sorry, what's "relax NG"?  Is there a draft of this somewhere?

W3C schema and relax NG are two grammars for specifying constraints on
an XML document. W3C schema is the oldest one and the only one everyone
supports. Relax NG is an newer alternative.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/spec-20011203.html

A lot of people are very very frustrated with W3C schema. However the
frustration is not related to the datatypes part, as far as I know every
single w3c schema datatype is reproduced as-is in relax NG.

> > It's only formalising the Reuters doc BTW.
> 
> But it changed some important details, at least as I read it.  For
> example, it introduced negative years, using a format that "date"
> cannot currently support.  And it says that the format of negative
> years is scheduled to change in a future version of the standard, to a
> different form that "date" cannot currently support either.
> 
> This is not purely a pedantic point, as "date" can easily generate
> negative years on 64-bit operating systems.
> 
> > 3. I forgot the fractional seconds part. Probably means you're not
> > allowed to pad with zeros. I don't think it's enforced in real life (but
> > I may be wrong)...
> >
> > Non canonical formats are not desired at all. XML is stop on first
> > mistake - canonical is the only thing allowed.
> 
> These statements seem to contradict each other.

W3C schema is so complex I'm not sure it's 100% implemented,
particularly for this kind of detail very few people care in real life 

XML will stop on any non-canonical deviation it can detect. So you can't
change anything just because it doesn't suit you. However the devil is
in the details - when the spec is so complex parsers are unable to
enforce the spec, well...

> I'm not saying that support for this format shouldn't be added; only
> that it'll be more useful if we know exactly what we're getting into.

You're quickly moving beyond my XML schema level of knowledge. You'd be
probably better of asking directly address@hidden at this point.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée