Re: XML Schema Datatype: unanswered questions.

[Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>]

From: Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <k-kawa@bigfoot.com>

>  It seems to me that WG gave up producing acceptable types (not only
> hierarchy but types themselves) for dates and times.

Yes and no.  We decided that it was better to provided limited times with
restrictions that could be lifted later (i.e. for XML Schemas 1.1) rather
than to have a detailed design now.  Another problem with the dates and
times was the issue of internationalization: the Gregorian calendar is
certainly not the only important calendar in use.  (As I know, having spent
half yesterday trying to convert some Chinese dates.)  For example, being
able to say "not in Ramadan" is useful.

Another option was indeed to drop dates and times entirely from this
version, but a limited version was better.

Another difficulty with dates and times is that the WG wanted to support ISO
8601 and SQL, but some people think ISO 8601 gets dates wrong and some of
SQL's date and times are not widely implemented, which may be a sign of a
problem there too.  (The editors of those standards were involved in
discussions too, by the way.)

>  Actually, I've posted more than 20 comments to
www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> but more than half are unanswered at all. It sure is a good way to
>discourage people from sending comments.

That is not good, and I apologise.

>  I'm not familiar with W3C process, but is WG allowed to ignore public
> reviews? I understand that the WG is very busy and obviously it is
> impossible to answer *all* of the comments, but how can they ignore
> comments like first two ?

I think a WG is not absolutely required to answer every comment, but they
certainly need to show that there is some process or reasonable effort to
answer comments.  Responding to public comments added at least 6 months to
the process, which I believe shows that there was a process and a genuine
attempt.

The comments were grouped and prioritized.  If your comment was not added to
the list, it was probably a sign that the general issue of dates and times
were already under discussion, or that the problems you had mentioned had
been raised by other s and acknowledged within the working group.  People
who sent their comments as part of a general thread of discussion on an
issue probably did not get an acknowledgement: probably the initial or best
statement of the problem was used.

Comments that did not contain "new information" it were not discussed much:
"new information" meant that the comments gave points that the WG was
already aware of.

Cheers
Rick  Jelliffe
(Not speaking officially for the WG)