3877 2006-10-28 16:46:49 +0000 Limits on dayTimeDuration 2006-10-28 18:18:09 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 mike cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 12642 0 mike 2006-10-28 16:46:49 +0000 The draft Schema 1.1 Part 2 (section 5.1) proposes: All ·minimally conforming· processors must support duration values with from -2,000,000,000 to 2,000,000,000 months and from -2,000,000 to 2,000,000 seconds. 2 million seconds is only 23 days. This means that an XSLT/XQuery user will not be able to take a date and add 30 days without running the risk of arithmetic overflow. But this is an everyday commercial calculation. This seems an unreasonably low limit from the point of view of user expectations of interoperability. 12643 1 davep 2006-10-28 18:12:49 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) In considering bug 3026 (which objected to that large a month component), the WG chose to also change the minimum partial implementation limit for seconds. That limit in the status quo document is now plus and minus 31622400 seconds (the length in seconds of one leap year). I assume this will satisfy your comment. 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. 12644 2 mike 2006-10-28 18:18:09 +0000 Yes, one year is certainly a much more reasonable limit. It's still probably a bit low for some users and use cases, and as an implementor I wouldn't see any benefit it restricting it as low as that (Saxon's limit is 2^63 microseconds), but this does address the comment.