• To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@r...>,<jeni@j...>
• Subject: RE: limits of the generic
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 03:23:14 -0700
• Cc: "John Cowan" <jcowan@r...>,<uche.ogbuji@f...>,"Jonathan Robie" <jonathan.robie@d...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcJnP7N55veMlmg8R7iNDpFjFK6MmAAYkDUD
• Thread-topic: limits of the generic

Did I misread John's email? 2005-03-01 is 3-1 isn't it? 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...] 
	Sent: Sat 9/28/2002 3:37 PM 
	To: jeni@j... 
	Cc: John Cowan; Dare Obasanjo; uche.ogbuji@f...; Jonathan Robie; xml-dev@l... 
	Subject: Re:  limits of the generic
	
	

	Jeni Tennison scripsit:
	
	> The algorithm in the W3C XML Schema Datatypes Recommendation adds the
	> year/month component first (which would give 2005-02-29), then "pins"
	> the result of that to give a legal date (i.e. 2005-02-28), and then
	> adds the day and time components of the duration (to give the final
	> answer of 2005-03-01).
	
	Which Astonishes me (as in Principle of Least Astonishment).  I would
	have expected a year after 2-29 to be 3-1.
	
	

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Next by Date: RE: limits of the generic
• Previous by thread: Re: Timezones (was: limits of the generic)
• Next by thread: Re: limits of the generic
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread