Hi Stefano, > > > > For example, unique IDs cannot start with a number, but all examples > > of IDs > > have been strictly numerical. Also the date below: > > > > http://host/path/id!date 031015 > > > > does not conform to ISO 8601. > > hmmm, http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html, says > > <quote> > part from the recommended primary standard notation YYYY-MM-DD, ISO > 8601 also specifies a number of alternative formats for use in > applications with special requirements. All of these alternatives can > easily and automatically be distinguished from each other: > > The hyphens can be omitted if compactness of the representation is more > important than human readability, for example as in > > 19950204 > </quote>
I did not read that deep... just followed the spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xmlschema-2-20001024/#date). So, I just tried to validate: <abc date="20000129"/> With: <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified"> <xs:element name="abc"> <xs:complexType> <xs:attribute name="date" type="xs:date"/> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:schema> The instance did not validate. So perhaps the validators are not following the ISO standard strictly? > > > Am I just being to nit-picky or is this something that simply has no > > value > > here? > > but I agree: if we can, reusing datatypes from other standards is a > good thing Cool > (might well give us code to reuse for parsing already > implemented in other projects!) Yea! :) -Rob > > -- > Stefano.
