Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/>
> Yep, the xml schema is the official specification from hell everyone > wants to forget But if it's the official one, it's the one that "date" should conform to, no? > it'll get superseded by something more sane like relax NG in time. Sorry, what's "relax NG"? Is there a draft of this somewhere? > It's only formalising the Reuters doc BTW. But it changed some important details, at least as I read it. For example, it introduced negative years, using a format that "date" cannot currently support. And it says that the format of negative years is scheduled to change in a future version of the standard, to a different form that "date" cannot currently support either. This is not purely a pedantic point, as "date" can easily generate negative years on 64-bit operating systems. > 3. I forgot the fractional seconds part. Probably means you're not > allowed to pad with zeros. I don't think it's enforced in real life (but > I may be wrong)... > > Non canonical formats are not desired at all. XML is stop on first > mistake - canonical is the only thing allowed. These statements seem to contradict each other. I'm not saying that support for this format shouldn't be added; only that it'll be more useful if we know exactly what we're getting into. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
