Subject: PaceDatesXSD

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:14:44 -0500

+1. Our AD has told us how to write this section, so the Pace just adds 
the regex, which I'm in favor of. Sam's suggestion at the end could 
easily be accomodated with a sentence saying "As a result, the date 
values are valid according to  [RFC3339], [XML-SCHEMA], and [w3cdtf]."

Robert Sayre

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:38:20 +0000

-1 on the regex. It's completely unreadable and hides whatever 
additional constraints it adds. Write those down in English please.

Graham

---

From: Norman Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:29:49 -0500

/ Graham <[email-masked]> was heard to say:
| -1 on the regex. It's completely
| unreadable and hides whatever
| additional constraints it adds. Write
| those down in English please.

Well, how about English and the regex? I'm worrying about
interoperability here. There's considerable pressure to use RFC 3339,
but I can't think of any practical, interoperable way to use RELAX NG
or W3C XML Schema to constrain the value of Date Constructs to RFC
3339. (I could do it by defining my own data type in RELAX NG, but
that wouldn't be interoperable; I could do it by using just
xsd:dateTime, but that wouldn't be constraining enough.)

I suppose I could just use the combination of xsd:dateTime and the
regular expression in my schema to implement the prose if we took the
regex out of the spec.

*shrug* It's been a long, hard day and I don't have any fight left in
me. Given that I'm reasonably confident that xsd:dateTime+regex is
isomorphic to the set of RFC 3339 date-times that we want to allow,
I'll accept whatever the group decides.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <[email-masked]> | We learn from experience that not
http://nwalsh.com/            | everything which is incredible is
                              | untrue.--Cardinal De Retz

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:27:31 -0800

At 3:29 PM -0500 2/8/05, Norman Walsh wrote:
>Well, how about English and the regex?

+1 to having both. It gives us a way to have others check our regex. 
Some IETF apps folks who haven't looked at this document will do so 
during IETF Last Call, and those folks can chew regexs in their sleep.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium