This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
This was formerly RQ-124. The current description of order relation on dateTime says "A. Normalize P and Q. That is, if there is a timezone present and it is not Z....' This is incorrect; values are either timezoned or not, but they don't carry with them the information of which timezone was indicated by the original lexical representation. For dateTime, the timezone of a timezoned value is an artifact of the lexical representation, not of the value. The order is defined on the value space. See (member-only link) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Oct/0258.html
See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003AprJun/0020.html
(In reply to comment #0) > This was formerly RQ-124. > > The current description of order relation on dateTime says "A. Normalize P and > Q. That is, if there is a timezone present and it is not Z....' This is > incorrect; values are either timezoned or not, but they don't carry with them > the information of which timezone was indicated by the original lexical > representation. For dateTime, the timezone of a timezoned value is an artifact > of the lexical representation, not of the value. The order is defined on the > value space. > > See (member-only link) > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Oct/0258.html Back in 2002 this made sense for 1.1. But it's OBE given the change to incorporate timezone information in the values, and to remove leap seconds. As far as 1.1 is concerned, this bug has been a non-issue for a long time. Recommend it be classified as for 1.0 only.
At the face to face meeting of January 2006 in St. Petersburg, the Working Group decided not to take further action on this issue in XML Schema 1.1. (This issue was not discussed separately; it was one of those which were dispatched by a blanket decision that all other open issues would be closed without action, unless raised again in last-call comments.) Some members of the Working Group expressed regret over not being able to resolve all the issues dealt with in this way, but on the whole the Working Group felt it better not to delay Datatypes 1.1 in order to resolve all of them. This issue should have been marked as RESOLVED /WONTFIX at that time, but apparently was not. I am marking it that way now, to reduce confusion.