2185 2005-09-14 18:48:49 +0000 R-192: Revisiting issue about canonical form for duration 2007-03-29 18:48:59 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.0 only All All ASSIGNED needsReview P2 normal --- 1 sandygao w3c-xml-schema-wg www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 6192 0 sandygao 2005-09-14 18:48:49 +0000 This mail is in response to the WG's decision on R-173. John Mercado asked what the canonical lexical representation of duration is; the WG decided that there is no need to specify it, since there is only one lexical representation per value. This reply seems to contradict the recommendation: If the number of years, months, days, hours, minutes, or seconds in any expression equals zero, the number and its corresponding designator may be omitted. [section 3.2.6.1] Thus, for example, "P1Y" and "P1Y0M" are alternative lexical representations for the same value. Furthermore, according to erratum E2-23, leading zeroes are permitted in each field, making "P01Y" a third alternative. Mercado's question is pertinent. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002OctDec/0131.html 6193 1 sandygao 2005-09-14 18:49:10 +0000 Discussed and classified at the 2003-11-21 telecon. Ashok to prepare text. Resolution: Proposed text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Nov/0053.html DaveP's comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Dec/0011.html