This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Sections 3.2.7.1 and 3.2.7.2 of the Datatypes Recommendation define the lexical and canonical representations of the dateTime datatype, respectively. Section 3.2.7.1 states, in part that: "Additional digits can be used to increase the precision of fractional seconds if desired i.e the format ss.ss... with any number of digits after the decimal point is supported. To accommodate year values greater than 9999 additional digits can be added to the left of this representation." Questions: Unlike the definition of decimal (3.2.3), this definition doesn't specify the minimum number of additional year digits nor the minimum number of additional digits in the fractional portion of the seconds that needs to be supported by a processor. Does a processor really need to be prepared to handle an arbitrary number of digits? Obviously this can have a significant effect on an implementation. ISO 8601 specifies that 24:00:00 of one day is the same as 00:00:00 of the following day. Which is the permitted form in the canonical representations of the various types? See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2001OctDec/0124.html
Ashok's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2001OctDec/0125.html Resolution: The WG agreed that the minimum number of digits needs to be specified. The WG agreed that a canonical form needs to be chosen for "24:00:00" for the various types. Proposed errata text for the 2 issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2002Jan/0038.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2002Jan/0039.html Text discussed at the Feb. 7 concall: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Feb/0017.html Further discussion of the decisions to be made for the text launched on the ig list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Feb/0046.html Further discussion at the Apr. 11 telecon: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Apr/0025.html The only remaining issue to be resolved is item 5 from list of questions. Status 06/28: Discussed at length at the June 14, 20 and 28 concalls. No consensus was reached. Latest discussion and summary of open issues can be found at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Jul/0004.html Discussed and resolved at the July f2f http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/07/xml-schema-ftf-minutes.html#ab3b3b3b5 Paul Biron to produce errata text. Discussed again at the Oct. 25 telecon. WG resolved that the minimum number of digits to be supported is 3. Ashok drafted some text - see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2003May/0028.html Part of the proposed text, i.e. the conformance note, was approved at the May 23,2003 telecon. Additional text, describing behaviour when a processor receives more digits than it supports is still pending approval.
There is a conformance note in 2E for duration, but the same note didn't exist for other related types. Also note the same wording appears in 1.1 part 2 (in an appendix) and we don't know where it should below.
(In reply to comment #2) > There is a conformance note in 2E for duration, but the same note didn't exist > for other related types. The note exists, in one uniform place (App C under current numbering), and is referenced in each appropriate date/time datatype. > Also note the same wording appears in 1.1 part 2 (in an appendix) and we don't > know where it should below. s/below/go/ ? An appropriate location for all such notes will be provided by the EP currently being considered by the editors to specify appropriate behavior of "partial implementations" and to unify the handling of such notes.
A conformance note is available for all relevant types except for duration. For phase 1 discussion, we need to provide a conformance note for duration. Please refer to my comment to bug 2571 (#1 made on 2005-12-09) for suggestions. For phase 2 discussion, we need to find a proper home for all such notes, as DaveP suggested in comment #3.
At the face to face meeting of January 2006 in St. Petersburg, the Working Group decided not to take further action on this issue in XML Schema 1.1. (This issue was not discussed separately; it was one of those which were dispatched by a blanket decision that all other open issues would be closed without action, unless raised again in last-call comments.) Some members of the Working Group expressed regret over not being able to resolve all the issues dealt with in this way, but on the whole the Working Group felt it better not to delay Datatypes 1.1 in order to resolve all of them. This issue should have been marked as RESOLVED /WONTFIX at that time, but apparently was not. I am marking it that way now, to reduce confusion.