xml schema dateTime vs timestamp -> was -> RE: PIDF - using xml s chema

> I had a quick look - at first glance the only thing that 
> flagged up was
> using xs:dateTime for the timestamp. I'm not sure how this compares to
> the IMPP datetime format that we mandate.

I thought the only difference between XML Schema dateTime and IMPP datetime
is that Schema's dateTime can have a '-' or '+' at the very beginning, so
can represent days 3000 years ago. If schema's dateTime is a superset, it
can be used to validate with the text adding additional restrictions by
saying it conforms to impp datetime (no initial =/-).  

After a quick look at both now, it looks like there may be an difference
that makes it so IMPP datetime isn't a subset of schema dateTime.  It looks
like dateTime lets you use either 't' or 'T' and either 'z' or 'Z' and xml
schema looks like it only lets you use 'Z' and 'T'.  

If IMPP dateTime isn't a subset of schema dateTime, we'd have to use string
or create the correct type in the schema.  A quick fix is to make it string
and which is all a DTD would do.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Bateman [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:41 AM
> To: 'Graham Klyne'; 'Carr, Wayne'
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: PIDF - using xml schema
> 
> 
> I've just finished reading draft-hollenbeck-ietf-xml-guidelines-00.txt
> and have the following observations for consideration:
> 
> * draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-02.txt:Section 3.1
> 
> I think we should change this to REQUIRE an XML declaration. We should
> mandate the use of UTF-8 and recommend that the encoding attribute
> SHOULD be used to explicitly note the use of UTF-8.
> 
> We should also require that documents MUST be well-formed.
> 
> 
> * draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-02.txt:Section 4.1.7
> 
> I think we should mandate the use of the xml:lang attribute for the
> <note> element. Should it be possible to have more than one <note>
> element for different languages?
> 
> 
> * draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-02.txt:Section 4.4
> 
> Rather than the DTD, we should use an XML schema and insist that PIDF
> documents MUST be valid according to the schema.
> 
> On 19 April 2002 08:41, Graham Klyne wrote:
> > I'm not familiar enough with XML schema to check this in 
> detail, but I
> > think it would be a good idea to include an XML schema as 
> an appendix.
> Any 
> > examples in the document should be validated against this schema.
> 
> I had a quick look - at first glance the only thing that 
> flagged up was
> using xs:dateTime for the timestamp. I'm not sure how this compares to
> the IMPP datetime format that we mandate.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Adrian.
> 
> 


  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]