Re: Alternative to the date regex
+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 + 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
Re: Alternative to the date regex
Sounds like a plan to me. +1.
Robert Sayre
Graham 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
Alternative to the date regex
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
