On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Iain 'Spoon' Truskett wrote: > > Speaking as an end user! I think that a module should either a) do > > what the user expects or b) die because it's not possible to do > > exactly what the user asked for. As I said I don't think turning > > -0600 into UTC is reasonably what the user asked for. > > Depends. Did they want output with offset, or did they want to represent > a particular time and date? If the former, they chose the wrong format. > If the latter, a conversion to UTC should be good.
If someone asks for the iCal representation of datetime, they shouldn't really care about how exactly it gets represented. iCal is a data interchange format, and as such all that matters is that the computers on both ends can understand each other. > Basically, the question is, I think: > + If we can represent a date/time in a particular format, > but with having to lose some sort of information (e.g. > explicit timezone or offset or attoseconds), should we? I think that depends on what the format is used for. With iCal, which is focused on calendaring, it makes sense that it's okay to lose the specific time zone, as long as the UTC time is correct. I'm not sure about W3CDTF. -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/
