[DFDL-WG] Ambiguity or Correct ? Behavior of time zone in infoset for xs:date

[Mike Beckerle]

I have a case where IBM DFDL and Daffodil differ, but I think both are
correct so this is just a case where users have to tolerate variation in
behavior:

<dfdl:format calendarPatternKind="implicit"  calendarTimeZone="UTC" />

<xs:element name="date1" type="xs:date" />

The data is "2010-12-30"

The DFDL spec says the parser behavior is as for pattern "yyyy-MM-dd",
which does not have any character for time zone information.
So the time zone information is coming from the dfdl:calendarTimeZone="UTC"
property.

But this question isn't about the parsing/unparsing behavior. It's about
what date/time components end up in the infoset and how those get projected
into XML by different DFDL implementations.

The problem is that there are multiple equivalent (according to XML/XSD and
ISO 8601) representations in the infoset for this information.

Ex:
     <date1>2010-12-30+00:00</date1> (Note: current Daffodil behavior)
or
     <date1>2010-12-30Z</date1> (Note: current IBM DFDL behavior)

I believe these are 100% equivalent according to ISO8601 which is the
standard for date/time referenced from XML/XSD.

If this is acceptable then there's no action here. It's just an equivalence
that users have to expect.

So I'm just raising this to get opinions.

Comments?


Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology |
www.tresys.com
Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are
subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy
<http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20181210/6c8381cc/attachment.html>