[tei-council] datatype issues (part 1)

[James Cummings]

Syd Bauman wrote:
> Yes! That's it in a nutshell. (EDW90 does propose all the W3C
> temporal types save duration be included; 

What was the reasoning for not including duration again?
> Since
> 
> a) I've yet to see any example of software that does something
>    useful with "13:14:54" but barfs on "13:15", and
> b) users aren't *required* to be imprecise
> 
> I think the extras are well worth it.

Let me just confirm this because my head must be off in the clouds, does ISO 
8601:2004 say that in order to have a valid time it has to be complete to the 
second?  I've not read the full ISO text (because like other ISO things it seems 
to cost money) so I've been relying on other people's explanations of it. 
However, the wikipedia article (which as we know might be completely wrong) says:

"It is also acceptable to omit elements to reduce precision. hh:mm, hhmm, and hh 
are all used."

This seems to indicate that you can say 13:15 or 13, etc.

Further, it even allows fractional notation:

"Fractions may also be used with all three of the time elements. These are 
indicated by using the decimal point (either a comma or dot). A fraction may 
only refer to the most precise component of a time representation -- that is, if 
you are indicated 14 hours, 30 and one half minutes, you do not include a 
seconds figure. You represent it as 14:30.5 or 1430.5. (You may replace the "." 
with a "," depending on the local custom.)"


Now, is the problem with the W3C Schema datatypes and the way they implement the 
ISO standard? I know there are some variations, but it seems like a pretty major 
one to insist on 13:14:54 instead of just 13:15.

Just want to make sure I'm understanding where the problem lies.

-James