[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 12:30 PM 6/11/2002 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
>
> > > If the schema
> > >language or an individual schema required some cryptic, proprietary
> > >format I would agree. But any educated person can *understand*
> > >'2002-06-11' without too much effort.
> >
> > I dunno. Is that June 11 or November 6? A normalization that makes sense
> > to your kind of educated person may not make sense to mine.
>
>Oh, come on, Simon, don't overstate your case. *Nobody* uses year-day-month
>dates, thank Ghu.
Heh. I never use year-first notation at all, so I have no way of knowing
what follows.
> > It has everything to do with whether normalization is good or
> > necessary. As W3C XML Schema enforces normalization, those types are also
> > polluted by this for purposes of this conversation.
>
>In document-centric contexts, the right application is probably something
>like this:
>
>Julius Caesar was assassinated on <date gDate="-43-03-13">the ides of
>March, 710 A.U.C.</date>,
>
>So the content tells us the Roman date, and the gDate attribute (of type
>gDate, obviously) gives us the Gregorian equivalent. Only the latter
>has an XSD type.
I think I'm even less happy about your attribute annotation approach. It
makes it look like we actually have a clue, when in fact we rarely do. Why
not specify a timezone while we're at it? Oh, right, those only appeared
around 1850.
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
