Re: Problem validating canonical form of dateTime

Thank you for your answer Michael, problem solved.
I had misunderstood  the phrase "Specifically, either the time zone must be
omitted or" in the paragraph 3.2.7.2.
I mistook the "time zone" for the "time part of the representation".

<citation>
3.2.7.2 Canonical representation

The canonical representation for *dateTime* is defined by prohibiting
certain options from the Lexical representation
(§3.2.7.1)<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#dateTime-lexical-repr>.
*Specifically, either the time zone must be omitted or*, if present, the
time zone must be Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) indicated by a "Z".
</citation>

Best regards
  Nicolas Voillot BBS Conception    [email protected]
 Tel. : 03 58 05 60 19 12 rue Colbert -  BP 382
63 010 Clermont-Ferrand Cedex 1
Tel. : 04 73 34 96 64
Fax : 03 57 75 63 54
www.bbsconception.com
2010/10/12 Michael Kay <[email protected]>

>  "2009-09-09" is valid for xs:date but not for xs:dateTime - the time part
> of the value is mandatory.
>
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica
>
>
> On 12/10/2010 8:49 AM, Nicolas Voillot wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm writting some xsd and xml related files and I encounter some problems
> when I try to validate dateTime nodes with your validator (
> http://www.w3.org/2001/03/webdata/xsv) : when the dateTime value is
> writted with the lexical form (for example "2009-09-09T00:00:00"), the
> validator is ok, but when the dateTime value is writted with the canonical
> form (for example "2009-09-09", see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#dateTime-lexical-reprand next paragraph), the validator is not ok.
> I have this message :
> Invalid per cvc-complex-type.1.2.2: element content failed type check:
> 2009-09-09 is not a valid dateTime literal
>
> Could you explain my error or correct the problem ?
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>