This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 2108 - R-119: Question about the value space for date
Summary: R-119: Question about the value space for date
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.0 only
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-09 15:08 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-04-21 19:25 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-09-09 15:08:43 UTC
The Datatypes spec states that the value space of date is the set of Gregorian 
calendar dates as defined in 5.2.1 of [ISO 8601]." It then says: "Since the 
lexical representation allows an optional time zone indicator...". However, 
there is nothing in 5.2.1 of ISO 8601 (at least not the 2000 edition) which 
suggests that a date can have an optional time zone indicator, or that suggests 
how it would be written if it were allowed. If this deviation from ISO 8601 is 
deliberate, which it seems to be, it should surely be flagged in Appendix D3. 
In fact, this seems to be the only case where Part 2 specifies a format that is 
definitely not allowed by ISO 8601; the other deviations are either 
restrictions, or things that ISO 8601 permits provided the parties agree.

See issue 6 from:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002JanMar/0476.html
Comment 1 Sandy Gao 2005-09-09 15:09:06 UTC
Ashok's response: 

"This is a deliberate extension to ISO 8601. Yes, it should have been included 
in Appendix D3."

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002JanMar/0615.html

Resolution:
The WG resolved at the May f2f to instruct the editors to draft erratum to D3 
noting the variance with ISO 8601.

Proposed text:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002May/0049.html 

Erratum text approved at the June 6 telecon.

Erratum E2-22 added.