+1 on dropping the regex. It isn't from any of the other specs,
it isn't specifically called out as explanatory and non-normative,
and it is too long to be clear.

Some examples would be nice, along with some examples of things
which do not conform.

wunder

--On March 25, 2005 5:11:09 PM +0000 Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Currently we have this
> 
>     "A Date construct is an element whose content MUST conform to the
>     date-time BNF rule in [RFC3339].  I.e., the content of this element
>     matches this regular expression:
> 
>     [0-9]{8}T[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}(\.[0-9]+)
>          ?(Z|[\+\-][0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2})
> 
>     As a result, the date values conform to the following specifications..."
> 
> The problem with the regex is that it's entirely redundant. If we look at 
> Norm's message where the regex was suggested [1], he intends it as a profile 
> of xsd:dateTime, which allows a variety of date formats. However we're using 
> it as a profile of RFC3339, which already requires that date-times match the 
> regex 100%. Having the regex there as well is just confusing - until 
> preparing this email I was under the impression it made some additional 
> restrictions on RFC3339.
> 
> The nearest thing I see to an additional restriction is that there must be a 
> capital T between the date and time, which the date-time BNF rule we mention 
> also requires, but the prose later mentions you might be allowed to use 
> something different.
> 
> Proposal:
> Replace the first para and regex with:
> 
>     A Date construct is an element whose content MUST conform to the
>     date-time BNF rule in [RFC3339]. Note this requires an uppercase letter T
>     between the date and time sections.
> 
> Secondly, *all* RFC3339 date-times are compatible with the 4 specs mentioned, 
> so the wording of the second paragraph ("As a result...") is a bit strange, 
> since it's not as a result of anything we've done. Just say "Date values 
> expressed in this way are also compatible with...".
> 
> Graham
> 
> [1]http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13116.html
> 
> 



--
Walter Underwood
Principal Architect, Verity

Reply via email to