[OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (OIC-34) Restrictions formeta:editing-duration

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OIC-34?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16664#action_16664 ] 

Bart Hanssens commented on OIC-34:
----------------------------------

We sure don't need leap-second granularity, we're producing office documents, not GPS systems :-)

If I read correctly, Bernd's point is just that, when an implementation uses M or Y, it's not clear how long a month or a year exactly is, so an implementation can be off by a few days. Hence his proposal to use only days, hours, minutes..

Andreas is right that, one can actually work pretty long on a document (even months of accumulated time). 


So, in the proposal, interoperable producers must only use days, hours, minutes components of ISO 8601. But they must be able accept something like 0 years 568 days.

And consumers may want to treat documents with do use years and months as Y = 365 days, and M = 30 days (even if that is not entirely accurate)

> Restrictions for meta:editing-duration
> --------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OIC-34
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OIC-34
>             Project: OASIS Open Document Format Interoperability and Conformance (OIC) TC
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: ODF11-InteropProfile
>    Affects Versions: Committee Draft
>            Reporter: Bernd Eilers
>            Assignee: Bart Hanssens
>            Priority: Minor
>
>  Section 3.3.2.17 of http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/33633/OpenDocument-v1.2-part1-cd03.odt
> defines <meta:editing-duration> Metadata as an element with a value that conforms to section 3.2.6 of the xmlschema-2 Spezifikation.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/#duration
>  
> I interpret the meaning of that value as the total accumulated time during which the document was being edited. Since there can be any
> number of gaps since the document was created where the document was not edited and which would thus not contribute to this total editing time a
> value here that would contain subelements specified as number of years or months does IMHO not make sense although it would be allowed by
> xmlschema-2 section 3.2.6. Number of years and months subelements in such a value being present would only make sense if we would have a
> value for some kind of elapsed time without non counted gaps in between which is not the case here.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira