17285 2012-06-01 15:57:30 +0000 [QT3TS] format-time-015 2012-10-10 10:03:35 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XQuery 3 & XPath 3 Test Suite Working drafts PC Windows NT CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 tim mike mike oneil public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 68514 0 tim 2012-06-01 15:57:30 +0000 I'm failing to match the expected result of this (and some other) date/time format tests. When formatting time zones with [z], the expect result includes results such as 0715GMT-14; 0745GMT-13:30; 0915; whereas I produce 0715GMT-14:00; 0745GMT-13:30; 0915GMT; respectively. Since there is no presentation modifier for [z], the default must be used "01:01". I presume that this means that the hour component of the timezone is presented using "01", and that the minute component is presented with "01". That said, from the spec "If this substring contains a single character, this is interpreted as the first presentation modifier. If it contains more than one character, the last character is examined: if it is valid as a second presentation modifier then it is treated as such, and the preceding part of the substring constitutes the first presentation modifier. Otherwise, the second presentation modifier is presumed absent and the whole substring is interpreted as the first presentation modifier." suggests that the presentation modifier should be split as "01:0" and "1". 68515 1 mike 2012-06-01 16:06:38 +0000 Yes, some of these tests have not been updated to reflect the changes that were made to the rules for timezone formatting. I will do this, but perhaps not instantly. 68519 2 tim 2012-06-01 16:13:38 +0000 Thanks. 71938 3 oneil 2012-08-08 15:30:12 +0000 I have made the change required and committed it to cvs. 72033 4 tim 2012-08-10 12:00:13 +0000 I get different results for the following tests. format-date-025 format-dateTime-017 format-dateTime-018 The difference is in the formatting of timezones where the hours component could be represented with a single digit. e.g. 0245GMT-06:30; vs. 0245GMT-6:30; format-date-026 The difference is in the in the formatting of timezones with a non-zero minute component. e.g. -13:30 vs. -1330 format-time-016 format-time-017 format-time-018 The difference is in the in the formatting of timezones. e.g. 14:00 vs. 14-00 75577 5 oneil 2012-10-08 15:30:02 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > I get different results for the following tests. > format-date-025 > format-dateTime-017 > format-dateTime-018 > format-date-026 I agree. We are also getting different results. Made the change and committed to cvs > format-time-016 > format-time-017 > format-time-018 > The difference is in the in the formatting of timezones. > e.g. 14:00 vs. 14-00 Don't agree here. We are getting the same result as the expected results. i.e. 14:00 format. 75801 6 oneil 2012-10-10 09:23:36 +0000 > > format-time-016 > > format-time-017 > > format-time-018 > > The difference is in the in the formatting of timezones. > > e.g. 14:00 vs. 14-00 > > Don't agree here. We are getting the same result as the expected results. > i.e. 14:00 format. I am wrong here. The format of the test outcomes are different to the expected results. I have made the change to the expected results and committed them to cvs. 75806 7 tim 2012-10-10 10:03:35 +0000 Confirmed fixed. Thanks.