dateTimeDomain - (now required, but no required subelements)

[Matt Jones]

David,

Its very possible that we missed one of the spots where all elemnets 
below a parent are optional.  We tried to avoid that situation. 
However, I don't think its a big deal if it is, in that people can 
easily determine that the child elements are missing and therefore the 
dateTimeDomain is unrestricted.  I certainly don't think we should 
modify it to make something required because that would break backwards 
compatibility with EML 2.0.0 documents with no apparent gain in 
functionality.

Matt

dblankman at lternet.edu wrote:
> Question:
> 
> Should dateTimeDomain be optional?
> 
> numericDomain is required, but the only required part is numberType, that is,
> bounds is optional.
> 
> dateTimeDomain has nothing analagous to numberType and bounds is optional. Seems
> to me that either dateTimeDomain should be optional or bounds should be required.
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 
> David Blankman
> _______________________________________________
> eml-dev mailing list
> eml-dev at ecoinformatics.org
> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev