"Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: . ... > > Yes, we should have a standard, but that standard should be usable across > the IETF. In the provreg WG, we're using XML Schema to specify a protocol > because XML and XML Schema provide needed extensibility features. I can't > use 2445-compliant date-time format because XML Schema won't accept it. Now I am confused, one of the formats in that draft is without dashes and spaces - then it is EXACTLY like RFC2445. So how can XML Schema handle them then? It looks like the draft is saying "this is the proposed standard including a version that XML can not use". So I would agree that there are different needs. That point does not seem to persuade me that a 3rd format should also be documented. > We can debate the merits (or detriments) of using non-IETF specified > technologies for IETF work, but that's not the issue at hand. The > Timestamps draft describes formats that can be used where 2445-format can't, > and at least in the case of the provreg WG that flexibility is needed. I also don't care if it is IETF or W3C work. I just don't see the need to create a proposed standard this is mostly like ISO, kind of like 2445, and you think would work with a (not yet?) recommended W3C proposal. My point is - what's the point? -Doug
begin:vcard n:Royer;Doug tel;cell:208-520-4044 tel;fax:208-552-1179 tel;work:208-520-4044 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://Royer.com/People/Doug org:INET-Consulting LLC version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Chief Executive Manager adr;quoted-printable:;;1795 W. Broadway #266=0D=0A;Idaho Falls;ID;83402;USA x-mozilla-cpt:;-1 fn:Doug Royer end:vcard
