3078 2006-04-04 17:24:21 +0000 Explain apparent contradiction re: order of durations 2006-11-14 00:29:48 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED thimble, easy noResponse P2 normal --- 1 francois cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 9030 0 francois 2006-04-04 17:24:21 +0000 Sections 3.4.26 (resp. 3.4.27): this says that yearMonthDuration (resp. dayTimeDuration) is totally ordered, but the 'ordered' fundamental facet is said to be 'partial'. Michael Sperberg-McQueen told us why this was so, but this looks so much like an error (or worse: obfuscation ;-) that we think the spec should explain it away. 11542 1 cmsmcq 2006-09-09 00:47:53 +0000 Thank you for the comment. The editors will need to draft a note with the desired explanation. I'm marking this issue as 'needsDrafting', since I believe the best way for the WG to take action on this issue is with a proposal from the editors in hand. When that proposal is ready, we'll be back in touch to see if you are happy with it. 11958 2 cmsmcq 2006-09-22 13:20:04 +0000 Proposed resolution: after the list of fundamental facets and their values for the yearMonthDuration and dayTimeDuration datatypes, add Notes. Three draft wordings have been prepared; if the i18n WG has a strong preference, we'd be interested to hear about it, although I don't promise the WG will agree with you. Draft A: Note: The ordered facet is partial even though the datatype is in fact totally ordered, because (as explained in 4.2.1 ordered, the value of that facet is unchanged by derivation. Draft B: Note: the ordered facet inherits the value 'partial' from the primitive duration datatype, even though the restriction imposed by the pattern facet results in a value space for which the ordering is in fact total. Draft C: Note: As noted above, the restriction imposed by the pattenr facet results in a value space for which the ordering inherited from the primitive duration datatype is a total order. The value of the fundamental facet ordered, which is not changed by the derivation, fails to reflect this fact. See section 4.2.1 ordered. 12218 3 davep 2006-09-30 15:03:00 +0000 A note reading Note: The ordered facet is partial even though the datatype is in fact totally ordered, because (as explained in 4.2.1 ordered), the value of that facet is unchanged by derivation. has been placed in the status quo document at the end of the fundamental facets list in the facets section of each of yearMonthDuration and dayTimeDuration. Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. 12219 4 davep 2006-09-30 15:08:38 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > Note: The ordered facet is partial even though the datatype is > in fact totally ordered, because (as explained in 4.2.1 ordered), > the value of that facet is unchanged by derivation. Oops!, my error; the Notes actually read: Note: The ordered facet has the value partial even though the datatype is in fact totally ordered, because (as explained in 4.2.1 ordered), the value of that facet is unchanged by derivation. (The difference is in the first line; s/is/has the value/.)