[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)

• To: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
• Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 22:01:05 -0400
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>,"Joe English" <jenglish@f...>
• References: <E17cFma-0007yV-00@m...>

Uche Ogbuji wrote:

> >
> > <div id="year"><p>Years in the Christian calender, to which 2000 is
> > added</p></div>
>
> I see no reason why the exact same provision cannot be made in the case of
>
> <date>2002-08-06</date>
>
> In the schema, you can say:
>
> "A date formatted as specified in ISO-8601"

yup. but this value _is_ tagged, it's not just a string.

>
> BTW, I always used
>
> 2002-08-06
>
> On purpose
>
> *you* came up with "02-02-01", which, as well as your XML representation,
has
> well-known problems in the general case.

example chosen for effect.

>
> I also don't see any reduction in abiguity.  You have explicitly put into
the
> instance data that is well-documented in ISO-8601.  You've only moved the
> authority, and I personally prefer the "YYY-MM-DD" form because it leaves
the
> authority where it belongs.
>
> > If it didn't reduce ambiguity _some_ then there would hardly be a need
for
> > XML, or SGML for that matter.
>
> Can you justify this statement?  Seems a leap to me.

well, with

<date>
    <month>02</month>
    <day>03</day>
    <year>2004</year>
</date>

if you can understand english and what a date is, and what tags mean, then
you ought understand this date in a totally unambiguous fashion. Contrast:

<date>2004-02-03</date>

Now, I'd _assume_ that these dates are the same, but how can you be totally
sure? There is _some_ ambiguity, unless you read some _external_
documentation.

Besides the vast majority of Americans write:

<date>02-03-2004</date>

and so when you have different specs that start mixing the order of years,
months, days it _is_ ambiguous. If you write out the date as is often seen
in legal documents it is the equivalent of the marked up version:

This third day of February in the year of our Lord 2004.

(assuming we agree who "our Lord" is :-)

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• References:
  • Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
• Next by Date: RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
• Previous by thread: Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
• Next by thread: Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread