on spec grp 2, datatypes normalized (was "Re: [tei-council] datatypes")

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Syd Bauman wrote:

>  So I still prefer
>     xsd:duration | xsd:token { pattern =
>     "[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+)? (year|month|week|d|h|min|s|ms|μs" }
>  (Note that is *not* the same as the one in EDW90; this one is,
>  IMHO, much better, and conforms to NIST recommendations (which use
>  SI wherever possible); however, it does not permit expression of a
>  negative duration.) But again, unlike xsd:duration where the
>  semantics are actually different, in this case it is only syntax,
>  so I don't care very much. I just think TEI users are going to be
>  much happier encoding <person age="3 month"> than <person
>  age="P3M"> and <event dur="13 ms"> than <event dur="PT0.013S">.
>  
>
Although you can guess which side of the fence I am on
personally, the reference to "TEI users" does remind us
that "P" in "P5" stands for "proposal".  This stuff
will be reviewed by the user community, won't it?

wearing my newly acquired i18n hat, i note that
"year", "month" and "week" are another example
of language specificity. Feel feel to reply that "M"
is the worst of both worlds :-}

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk