This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
In "3.3.9 time": "Date values with different time zone offsets that were identical in the 1.0 version of this specification, such as 2000-12-12+13:00 and 2000-12-11−11:00, are ..." Given that we are talking about the "time" type, seems it should read: "Time values ..., such as 05:00:00-03:00 and 10:00:00+02:00, ..." "23:00:00-03:00 and 02:00:00Z" might be another useful example.
(In reply to comment #0) > Given that we are talking about the "time" type, seems it should read: > > "Time values ..., such as 05:00:00-03:00 and 10:00:00+02:00, ..." > > "23:00:00-03:00 and 02:00:00Z" might be another useful example. We should consider this a formal editorial recommendation to the WG: Change the second paragraph of the second Note in 2.2.9.1 to read: "Time values with different time zone offsets that were identical in the 1.0 version of this specification, such as 23:00:00-03:00 and 02:00:00Z, or 05:00:00-03:00 and 10:00:00+02:00, are in this version of this specification equal (because they begin at the same moment on the time line) but are not identical (because they have and retain different time zone offsets)."
At its telephone meeting 29 May, the WG decided to change the second paragraph of the second Note in 2.2.9.1 to read: "Time values with different time zone offsets that were identical in the 1.0 version of this specification, such as 23:00:00-03:00 and 02:00:00Z, or 05:00:00-03:00 and 10:00:00+02:00, are in this version of this specification equal (because they identify the same points on the time line) but are not identical (because they have and retain different time zone offsets)."
(In reply to comment #2) > At its telephone meeting 29 May, the WG decided to change the second paragraph > of the second Note in 2.2.9.1 to read: that should, of course, read "3.3.9.1".
The change described in comment 2 has now been integrated into the status-quo documents. I am accordingly marking this issue resolved. Sandy, as the originator, if you would signal your acceptance or rejection of this resolution by closing or reopening the bug in the usual manner, it would be helpful. If the working group does not hear otherwise from you in the next two weeks, we will assume that you are content with the disposition of this comment.