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 2130 - R-141: Changes suggested re: dateTime order relation
Summary: R-141: Changes suggested re: dateTime order relation
Status: ASSIGNED
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: needsAgreement
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-09 16:24 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2007-03-29 18:48 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-09-09 16:24:17 UTC
In section 3.2.7.3 on the order relation of dateTime, at B.1, it says:

1.. If P[i] and Q[i] are both not specified, continue to the next i 2.. If P[i] 
is not specified and Q[i] is, or vice versa, stop and return P <> Q 
This doesn't make any sense to me. When could P[i] or Q[i] be "not specified"? 
In dateTime all fields are specified.

When things like gYearMonth appeal to the dateTime order, they do so by saying 
eg "the order relation on gYearMonth values is the order relation on their 
starting instants", so in this case also all fields are totally specified.

I think the above two sentences should be deleted.

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002AprJun/0044.html
Comment 1 Sandy Gao 2005-09-09 16:34:15 UTC
See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003AprJun/0020.html

Discussed at the May 2003 f2f. Decided to classify as error w/erratum and come 
back later for detailed consideration.