Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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. > 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. > "Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue "Your uncle is not sick. He only thinks he is sick. Let him repeat EDIEWIGBAB once a day for six months and he will be cured." Six months pass... "How is your uncle?" "He thinks he is dead." -- John Cowan <jcowan@r...> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
