Re: xml schema dateTime vs timestamp -> was -> RE: PIDF - using xml schema
Jonathan Rosenberg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.impp |
|---|---|
| Organization | dynamicsoft |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
"Carr, Wayne" wrote: > > 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. I don't see the value in having a separate datetime which is *almost* the same as schemas, but not quite, especially if the difference is just syntactic. I would prefer to fix the impp date time spec to agree with the schema format. -Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 [email protected] FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]