2027 2005-09-07 20:42:23 +0000 R-049: ISO 8601:2000 defines 0000 as a valid year 2009-04-21 19:24:53 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.0 only All All CLOSED LATER P2 normal --- 1 sandygao w3c-xml-schema-wg www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 5843 0 sandygao 2005-09-07 20:42:23 +0000 ISO 8601:2000 defines 0000 to be a valid year, unlike the specification of dateTime in the "XML Schema: Datatypes" recommendation. Should dateTime follow ISO 8601:2000 in this respect? See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2001JulSep/0095.html 5895 1 cmsmcq 2005-09-08 21:01:01 +0000 It seems likely that this item may have been overtaken by events, or classified before: XML Schema 1.1 does explicitly support the lexical form '0000' with the meaning 1 BCE, and it seems likely that we explicitly decided to make that change in 1.1 and not in a corrigendum to 1.0 on compatibility grounds. But the Rec Comments list shows the status of this item still as "unclassified", and it will be quicker to classify it and dispose of it afresh than to trawl through the minutes of the WG trying to find a record of having dealt with it before. (Quicker for me, that is.) So I'm marking this unclassified and assigning it to the WG for classification. 5937 2 sandygao 2005-09-09 02:51:02 +0000 See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2001JulSep/0098.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2001JulSep/0100.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2001JulSep/0101.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002AprJun/0042.html 6345 3 sandygao 2005-09-19 20:53:05 +0000 Discussed during 2005-09-16 WG telecon. Defer to a future version. See RQ-123. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Sep/0081.html